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.

Description of a Lung Cancer Hotspot: Disparities in Lung Cancer Histology, Incidence, and Survival in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky

INTRODUCTION

Kentucky is recognized as the state with the highest lung cancer burden for more than 2 decades, but how lung cancer differs in Kentucky relative to other US populations is not fully understood.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

We examined lung cancer reported to the Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) Program by Kentucky and the other SEER regions for patients diagnosed between 2012 and 2016. Our analyses included histologic types, incidence rates, stage at diagnosis, and survival in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky relative to other SEER regions.

RESULTS

We found that both squamous cell carcinomas and small-cell lung cancers represent larger proportions of lung cancer diagnoses in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky than they do in the SEER registries. Furthermore, age-adjusted cancer incidence rates were higher in Kentucky for every subtype of lung cancer examined. Most notably, for Appalachian women the rate of small-cell carcinomas was 3.5-fold higher, and for Appalachian men the rate of squamous cell carcinoma was 3.1-fold higher, than the SEER rates. In Kentucky, lung cancers were diagnosed at later stages and lung cancer survival was lower for adenocarcinoma and neuroendocrine carcinomas than in SEER registries. Squamous cell carcinomas and small-cell carcinomas were most lethal in Appalachian Kentucky.

CONCLUSION

Together, these data highlight the considerable disparities among lung cancer cases in the United States and demonstrate the continuing high burden and poor survival of lung cancer in Kentucky and Appalachian Kentucky. Strategies to identify and rectify causes of these disparities are discussed.

Geographic and Specialty Access Disparities in US Pediatric Leukodystrophy Diagnosis

OBJECTIVE

To examine disparities in the diagnosis of leukodystrophies including geographic factors and access to specialty centers.

STUDY DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study of pediatric patients admitted to Pediatric Health Information System hospitals. Patients with leukodystrophy were identified with International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision, Clinical Modification diagnostic codes for any of 4 leukodystrophies (X-linked adrenoleukodystrophy, Hurler disease, Krabbe disease, and metachromatic leukodystrophy). We used 3-level hierarchical generalized logistic modeling to predict diagnosis of a leukodystrophy based on distance traveled for hospital, neighborhood composition, urban/rural context, and access to specialty center.

RESULTS

We identified 501 patients with leukodystrophy. Patients seen at a leukodystrophy center of excellence hospital were 1.73 times more likely to be diagnosed than patients at non-center of excellence hospitals. Patients who traveled farther were more likely to be diagnosed than those who traveled shorter. Patients living in a Health Professionals Shortage Area zip code were 0.86 times less likely to be diagnosed than those living in a non-Health Professionals Shortage Area zip code.

CONCLUSIONS

Geographic factors affect the diagnosis of leukodystrophies in pediatric patients, particularly in regard to access to a center with expertise in leukodystrophies. Our findings suggest a need for improving access to pediatric specialists and possibly deploying specialists or diagnostic testing more broadly.

Engaging rural communities in genetic research: challenges and opportunities

Statistical analyses of health and disease in rural communities is frequently limited by low sample counts. Still, some studies indicate increased risk for some diseases even after adjustment for known risk factors. It has been hypothesized that the context of community formation in rural areas facilitates the propagation of genetic founder effects-potentially impacting disease susceptibility. However, outright examination of genetic diversity in such communities has not been performed. Our objective was to engage otherwise research-inexperienced rural communities of largely European descent in genomic research in the context of cancer susceptibility. From September 2015 to February 2016, we implemented a systematic process of progressive community engagement. This iterative method sought project buy-in from first the town mayor, then village council. If approved by both, a focus group of community members examined how residents might view the research, informed consent and specimen collection, and issues of privacy. We were successful in engaging three of the four communities approached for the research project. There was universal enthusiasm for the project by all mayors and village councils. The focus groups' main point of discussion involved wording in the informed consent, with little concern regarding the research question or privacy. Perhaps contrary to popular thought, we found each community we approached to be both welcoming and enthusiastic about collaborating in research on genomic diversity. The systematic method of engagement did much to preserve community respect and autonomy and facilitated buy-in.