IDEAS home Printed from
MyIDEAS: Log in (now much improved!) to save this paper

The E¤ect of Rurality on Mental and Physical Health

Listed author(s):
  • Steven Stern


  • Elizabeth Merwin


  • Emily Hauenstein


  • Ivora Hinton


  • Virgina Rovnyak


  • Melvin Wilson


  • Ishan Williams


  • Irma Mahone


Any time researchers choose to conduct a study on any aspect of rural health care, they are faced with a di¢ cult methodological choice regarding the oper- ational de?nition of rural to use in their study. While this seems to many who are not familiar with rural research to be a straightforward question (and often naive rural researchers expect to ?nd a single answer that is commonly agreed upon by experts in rural research), to date there is no single answer that is based on a consensus and supported by scienti?c evidence. Coburn, et al. (2007) states that ?there is no single, universally preferred de?nition of rural that serves all policy purposes.? One goal of this paper is to provide a method useful in informing the choice of rural de?nitions for a speci?c research study. This methods paper presents a systematic evaluation of the impact of the choice of rural de?nition on results. It was stimulated by the need to select a rural de?nition to use in related papers on the impact of community resources on mental and general health outcomes in other research by the authors. A na- tional dataset, the Community Tracking Survey, 2000-2001, includes individual level observations from household interviews. We merge it with county level data re?ecting community resources, and we use econometric methods to ana- lyze this multi-level data, accounting for individuals from the same family being included in the dataset. The e¤ect of using four di¤erent de?nitions of rural available for use in county level analysis is presented. A statistical analysis of the impact of the choice of a rural de?nition on outcomes and on the esti- mates and signi?cance of explanatory variables in the model is presented and is used to inform the selection of the de?nition to use in other research. Dif- ferences in results for mental health, physical health, and utilization of health care variables are evaluated. The choice of a rural definition is presented and justi?ed using the methodological analyses presented in this paper. Strengths and weaknesses of using county-level community characteristics as compared to data from larger geographic areas, such as Health Services Areas, or from smaller geographic areas, such as census tracts or zip codes, are discussed. Fi- nally, the need for a methods study to guide the use of multi-level geographic data to re?ect community characteristics within health care studies is proposed.

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.

File URL:
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by University of Virginia, Department of Economics in its series Virginia Economics Online Papers with number 381.

in new window

Length: 40 pages
Date of creation: Apr 2008
Handle: RePEc:vir:virpap:381
Contact details of provider: Web page:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

in new window

  1. Patrick Bayer & Robert McMillan & Kim Rueben, 2002. "What Drives Racial Segregation? New Evidence Using Census Microdata," Working Papers 02-26, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  2. Polsky, Daniel & Kletke, Phillip R. & Wozniak, Gregory D. & Escarce, Jose J., 2000. "HMO penetration and the geographic mobility of practicing physicians," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 19(5), pages 793-809, September.
  3. Susan Athey & Scott Stern, 2000. "The Impact of Information Technology on Emergency Health Care Outcomes," NBER Working Papers 7887, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  4. J Hurley, 1991. "Physicians' Choices of Specialty, Location and Mode: A Re-examination Within an Interdependent Decision Framework," Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis Working Paper Series 1, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis (CHEPA), McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada.
  5. Jacob L. Vigdor, 2002. "Locations, Outcomes, and Selective Migration," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(4), pages 751-755, November.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:vir:virpap:381. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Debby Stanford)

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.