↓ Skip to main content

Rural definition of health: a systematic literature review

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, April 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
167 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Rural definition of health: a systematic literature review
Published in
BMC Public Health, April 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12889-015-1658-9
Pubmed ID
Authors

Charles Gessert, Stephen Waring, Lisa Bailey-Davis, Pat Conway, Melissa Roberts, Jeffrey VanWormer

Abstract

The advent of patient-centered care challenges policy makers, health care administrators, clinicians, and patient advocates to understand the factors that contribute to effective patient activation. Improved understanding of how patients think about and define their health is needed to more effectively "activate" patients, and to nurture and support patients' efforts to improve their health. Researchers have intimated for over 25 years that rural populations approach health in a distinct fashion that may differ from their non-rural counterparts. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to assess the extent and strength of evidence for rural definition of health. Studies were eligible for inclusion if they were published in English, reported on original research and presented findings or commentary relevant to rural definition of health, were published over the last 40 years, and were based on observations of rural U.S., Canadian, or Australian populations. Two reviewers were assigned to each selected article and blinded to the other reviewer's comments. For discordant reviews, a third blinded review was performed. Of the 125 published articles identified from the literature, 34 included commentary or findings relevant to a rural definition of health. Of these studies, 6 included an urban comparison group. Few studies compared rural and urban definitions of health directly. Findings relevant to rural definition of health covered a broad range; however, good health was commonly characterized as being able to work, reciprocate in social relationships, and maintain independence. This review largely confirmed many general characteristics on rural views of health, but also documented the extensive methodological limitations, both in terms of quantity and quality, of studies that empirically compare rural vs. urban samples. Most notably, the evidence base in this area is weakened by the frequent absence of parallel comparison groups and standardized assessment tools. To engage and activate rural patients in their own healthcare, a better understanding of the health beliefs in rural populations is needed. This review suggests that rural residents may indeed hold distinct views on how to define health, but more rigorous studies are needed to confirm these findings.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 167 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Portugal 2 1%
South Africa 2 1%
Indonesia 1 <1%
Uganda 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 159 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 29 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 18 11%
Student > Bachelor 18 11%
Researcher 17 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 38 23%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Nursing and Health Professions 28 17%
Social Sciences 28 17%
Medicine and Dentistry 25 15%
Psychology 6 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 3%
Other 34 20%
Unknown 41 25%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 11 May 2015.
All research outputs
#13,433,099
of 22,800,560 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#9,542
of 14,855 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#127,850
of 264,373 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#156
of 247 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,800,560 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 14,855 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.9. This one is in the 33rd percentile – i.e., 33% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 264,373 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 247 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 34th percentile – i.e., 34% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.