Unmasking hidden disparities: a comparative observational study examining the impact of different rurality classifications for health research in Aotearoa New Zealand.

EPIDEMIOLOGY Health policy PUBLIC HEALTH STATISTICS & RESEARCH METHODS

Journal

BMJ open
ISSN: 2044-6055
Titre abrégé: BMJ Open
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101552874

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
13 04 2023
Historique:
medline: 17 4 2023
entrez: 13 4 2023
pubmed: 14 4 2023
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Examine the impact of two generic-urban-rural experimental profile (UREP) and urban accessibility (UA)-and one purposely built-geographic classification for health (GCH)-rurality classification systems on the identification of rural-urban health disparities in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). A comparative observational study. NZ; the most recent 5 years of available data on mortality events (2013-2017), hospitalisations and non-admitted hospital patient events (both 2015-2019). Numerator data included deaths (n Primary measures were the unadjusted rural incidence rates for 17 health outcome and service utilisation indicators, using each rurality classification. Secondary measures were the age-sex-adjusted rural and urban incidence rate ratios (IRRs) for the same indicators and rurality classifications. Total population rural rates of all indicators examined were substantially higher using the GCH compared with the UREP, and for all except paediatric hospitalisations when the UA was applied. All-cause rural mortality rates using the GCH, UA and UREP were 82, 67 and 50 per 10 000 person-years, respectively. Rural-urban all-cause mortality IRRs were higher using the GCH (1.21, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.22), compared with the UA (0.92, 95% CI 0.91 to 0.94) and UREP (0.67, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.68). Age-sex-adjusted rural and urban IRRs were also higher using the GCH than the UREP for all outcomes, and higher than the UA for 13 of the 17 outcomes. A similar pattern was observed for Māori with higher rural rates for all outcomes using the GCH compared with the UREP, and 11 of the 17 outcomes using the UA. For Māori, rural-urban all-cause mortality IRRs for Māori were higher using the GCH (1.34, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.38), compared with the UA (1.23, 95% CI 1.19 to 1.27) and UREP (1.15, 95% CI 1.10 to 1.19). Substantial variation in rural health outcome and service utilisation rates were identified with different classifications. Rural rates using the GCH are substantially higher than the UREP. Generic classifications substantially underestimated rural-urban mortality IRRs for the total and Māori populations.

Identifiants

pubmed: 37055208
pii: bmjopen-2022-067927
doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-067927
pmc: PMC10106021
doi:

Types de publication

Comparative Study Journal Article Observational Study Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

e067927

Informations de copyright

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Déclaration de conflit d'intérêts

Competing interests: None declared.

Références

J Rural Health. 2010 Summer;26(2):164-74
pubmed: 20447003
Health Rep. 2019 May 15;30(5):3-15
pubmed: 31091331
Scand J Public Health. 2020 Dec;48(8):791-793
pubmed: 32456534
N Z Med J. 2019 Mar 29;132(1492):19-29
pubmed: 30921308
Lancet Reg Health West Pac. 2022 Aug 18;28:100570
pubmed: 36042896
J Rural Health. 2014 Summer;30(3):275-83
pubmed: 24329575
N Z Med J. 2022 Aug 5;135(1559):24-40
pubmed: 35999779
Aust J Rural Health. 2021 Dec;29(6):939-946
pubmed: 34494690
J Rural Health. 2016 Spring;32(2):219-27
pubmed: 26397170
J Rural Health. 2009 Summer;25(3):259-66
pubmed: 19566611
Aust J Rural Health. 2008 Apr;16(2):56-66
pubmed: 18318846
J Rural Health. 2010 Fall;26(4):301-9
pubmed: 21029164
J Urban Health. 2007 Jul;84(4):591-603
pubmed: 17447145
JAMA. 2021 Jun 8;325(22):2312-2314
pubmed: 34100876
J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2021;32(4):2167-2180
pubmed: 34803066
J Rural Health. 2002 Fall;18(4):536-46
pubmed: 12380896
N Z Med J. 2016 Aug 05;129(1439):77-81
pubmed: 27507724

Auteurs

Jesse Whitehead (J)

Department of General Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand Jesse.whitehead@waikato.ac.nz.
Te Ngira: Institute for Population Research, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Gabrielle Davie (G)

Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Brandon de Graaf (B)

Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Sue Crengle (S)

Department of Preventive and Social Medicine, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Ross Lawrenson (R)

Waikato Medical Research Centre, The University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.
Te Whatu Ora - Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.

Rory Miller (R)

Department of General Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.
Te Whatu Ora - Waikato, Thames, New Zealand.

Garry Nixon (G)

Department of General Practice and Rural Health, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH