J Health Care Poor Underserved. 2021;32(4):2167-2180. doi: 10.1353/hpu.2021.0189.
Inconsistency in identifying rural hospices has biased research findings and policy analysis. The purpose of this study was to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of eight rural-urban classifications against the gold standard of the Office of Budget and Management (OMB) to determine the utility of alternative measures in hospice research. These classifications included: Urban-Rural Classification Scheme for Counties (URCSC), Urban Influence Codes (UIC), Rural-Urban Continuum Code (RUCC), Federal Office of Rural Health Policy (FORHP), Index of Relative Rurality (IRR), the U.S. Census Bureau, Rural-Urban Commuting Area codes (RUCA), and Frontier and Remote (FAR). The last and the U.S. Census Bureau classified the smallest number of hospices; URCSC, UIC, and RUCC were indistinguishable from the OMB; and RUCA, IRR, and FORHP classified as rural the largest number of hospices. The latter three classifications also had good agreement with the OMB and therefore can be recommended for use instead of the OMB.
农村临终关怀机构的识别不一致,导致研究结果和政策分析存在偏差。本研究的目的是对八项城乡分类标准与预算和管理办公室(OMB)的金标准进行全面评估,以确定替代措施在临终关怀研究中的效用。这些分类标准包括:县城乡分类方案(URCSC)、城市影响代码(UIC)、城乡连续体代码(RUCC)、联邦农村卫生政策办公室(FORHP)、相对农村性指数(IRR)、美国人口普查局、城乡通勤区代码(RUCA)和边疆和偏远地区(FAR)。最后,美国人口普查局分类的临终关怀机构数量最少;URCSC、UIC 和 RUCC 与 OMB 无法区分;RUCA、IRR 和 FORHP 将最多的临终关怀机构分类为农村。后三种分类标准与 OMB 也具有良好的一致性,因此可以推荐用于替代 OMB。