Elisa M Childs, Javier F Boyas, Julianne R Blackburn
{"title":"不走寻常路:美国政府在农村健康促进中如何定义“农村”的范围审查。","authors":"Elisa M Childs, Javier F Boyas, Julianne R Blackburn","doi":"10.34172/hpp.2022.02","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Given the recognition that the U.S. government lacks a consensus definition of the word <i>rural</i>, the purpose of this scoping review was to uncover how the federal government defines the term and to establish a nuanced understanding of what criterion is used to designate an area as rural. <b>Methods:</b> Arksey and O'Malley's framework was used to synthesize, analyze, and summarize the existing literature. A multi-system search was conducted, and articles were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. <b>Results:</b> Initially, 929 articles were screened that used the search terms <i>rural</i> and some variation of the word <i>definition</i>. After eliminating all ineligble studies, 49 documents were included in the final analysis. These documents revealed 33 federal definitions of <i>rural</i>. The majority of definitions centered on either population, population density, or urban integration provisions. Additionally, the analysis showed that the literature could be separated into two categories: how <i>rural</i> was defined in a particular industry or for a specific population and the multiple adverse effects of having multiple definitions of <i>rural</i>. <b>Conclusion:</b> The discrepancies found in current classification systems reveal the need for a standardized definition of <i>rural</i>. Ultimately, policies centered on securing health care services for rural populations are impacted by whatever definition of <i>rural</i> is used. Failing to establish a gold standard definition of <i>rural</i> could have harmful consequences to the health and wellbeing of the many people living in rural communities across the U.S.</p>","PeriodicalId":46588,"journal":{"name":"Health Promotion Perspectives","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9277290/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Off the beaten path: A scoping review of how 'rural' is defined by the U.S. government for rural health promotion.\",\"authors\":\"Elisa M Childs, Javier F Boyas, Julianne R Blackburn\",\"doi\":\"10.34172/hpp.2022.02\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p><b>Background:</b> Given the recognition that the U.S. government lacks a consensus definition of the word <i>rural</i>, the purpose of this scoping review was to uncover how the federal government defines the term and to establish a nuanced understanding of what criterion is used to designate an area as rural. <b>Methods:</b> Arksey and O'Malley's framework was used to synthesize, analyze, and summarize the existing literature. A multi-system search was conducted, and articles were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. <b>Results:</b> Initially, 929 articles were screened that used the search terms <i>rural</i> and some variation of the word <i>definition</i>. After eliminating all ineligble studies, 49 documents were included in the final analysis. These documents revealed 33 federal definitions of <i>rural</i>. The majority of definitions centered on either population, population density, or urban integration provisions. Additionally, the analysis showed that the literature could be separated into two categories: how <i>rural</i> was defined in a particular industry or for a specific population and the multiple adverse effects of having multiple definitions of <i>rural</i>. <b>Conclusion:</b> The discrepancies found in current classification systems reveal the need for a standardized definition of <i>rural</i>. Ultimately, policies centered on securing health care services for rural populations are impacted by whatever definition of <i>rural</i> is used. Failing to establish a gold standard definition of <i>rural</i> could have harmful consequences to the health and wellbeing of the many people living in rural communities across the U.S.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":46588,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Health Promotion Perspectives\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-05-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9277290/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Health Promotion Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2022.02\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2022/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Promotion Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.34172/hpp.2022.02","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2022/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
Off the beaten path: A scoping review of how 'rural' is defined by the U.S. government for rural health promotion.
Background: Given the recognition that the U.S. government lacks a consensus definition of the word rural, the purpose of this scoping review was to uncover how the federal government defines the term and to establish a nuanced understanding of what criterion is used to designate an area as rural. Methods: Arksey and O'Malley's framework was used to synthesize, analyze, and summarize the existing literature. A multi-system search was conducted, and articles were screened for eligibility by two independent reviewers using pretested forms. Results: Initially, 929 articles were screened that used the search terms rural and some variation of the word definition. After eliminating all ineligble studies, 49 documents were included in the final analysis. These documents revealed 33 federal definitions of rural. The majority of definitions centered on either population, population density, or urban integration provisions. Additionally, the analysis showed that the literature could be separated into two categories: how rural was defined in a particular industry or for a specific population and the multiple adverse effects of having multiple definitions of rural. Conclusion: The discrepancies found in current classification systems reveal the need for a standardized definition of rural. Ultimately, policies centered on securing health care services for rural populations are impacted by whatever definition of rural is used. Failing to establish a gold standard definition of rural could have harmful consequences to the health and wellbeing of the many people living in rural communities across the U.S.