Robertson Brian D, McConnel Charles E
Children's Medical Center-Dallas, Dallas, Texas, USA.
Rural Remote Health. 2011;11(1):1521. Epub 2011 Jan 27.
Rural areas in the USA are generally poorer, more isolated, less populated, have older populations, and also unique work dynamics that fundamentally set them apart from urban areas. Additionally, funding and resources are limited in rural areas; a problem that may be exacerbated when looking specifically at town-level resources. One of the key problems in comparing US rural and urban areas, particularly at the county level, is that the resources available to individual towns within a particular county may not accurately reflect the resources available to the county as a whole. This leads to questions about the validity of county-level comparisons between rural and urban areas because of differences in town sizes and the resources availability at this level. The authors of this study attempted to assess this difference by analyzing data previously collected for a study examining pediatric traumatic brain injury among four levels of rurality: urban city, large town, small town, and isolated town.
This study employed Rural and Urban Commuting Area 2 (RUCA2) codes to determine if significant differences exist between small and large towns for pediatric traumatic brain injury. Patients were included in this study if they presented to Children's Medical Center Dallas with severe traumatic brain injury, and comparisons of injury severity and outcome were compared between small and large towns. Patient zip (postal) codes were collected and designated as either small or large town based on the corresponding RUCA2 code.
A total of 444 patients were included in this study, with significant differences between large and small towns for Trauma Scores, Trauma Score and Injury Severity Score (TRISS) measures, and the total length of stay.
This study has numerous limitations, yet it demonstrates that comparisons based on the RUCA code designations of large and small towns can be an effective means for understanding the differences at the town level, and also to better establish prevention strategies geared toward these differences.
美国农村地区普遍较为贫困、更为偏远、人口较少、人口老龄化程度较高,且有着与城市地区截然不同的独特工作动态。此外,农村地区的资金和资源有限;在具体审视镇级资源时,这一问题可能会更加突出。在美国农村和城市地区进行比较时,尤其是在县级层面,一个关键问题是,特定县内各个城镇可获取的资源可能无法准确反映整个县可获取的资源。由于城镇规模以及该层面资源可获取性的差异,这引发了关于农村和城市地区县级比较有效性的问题。本研究的作者试图通过分析先前为一项研究收集的数据来评估这种差异,该研究考察了四个农村层级(城市、大城镇、小城镇和孤立城镇)的儿童创伤性脑损伤情况。
本研究采用农村和城市通勤区2(RUCA2)代码来确定小城镇和大城镇在儿童创伤性脑损伤方面是否存在显著差异。如果患者因严重创伤性脑损伤前往达拉斯儿童医疗中心就诊,则纳入本研究,并比较小城镇和大城镇之间的损伤严重程度和预后情况。收集患者的邮政编码,并根据相应的RUCA2代码将其指定为小城镇或大城镇。
本研究共纳入444例患者,大城镇和小城镇在创伤评分、创伤评分和损伤严重程度评分(TRISS)测量以及总住院时长方面存在显著差异。
本研究存在诸多局限性,但它表明,基于大城镇和小城镇的RUCA代码指定进行比较,可能是理解城镇层面差异的有效手段,也有助于更好地制定针对这些差异的预防策略。