Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Is the health of people living in rural areas different from those in cities? Evidence from routine data linked with the Scottish Health Survey

BMC Health Services Research201212:43

DOI: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-43

Received: 9 June 2011

Accepted: 17 February 2012

Published: 17 February 2012

Abstract

Background

To examine the association between rurality and health in Scotland, after adjusting for differences in individual and practice characteristics.

Methods

Design: Mortality and hospital record data linked to two cross sectional health surveys. Setting: Respondents in the community-based 1995 and 1998 Scottish Health Survey who consented to record-linkage follow-up. Main outcome measures: Hypertension, all-cause premature mortality, total hospital stays and admissions due to coronary heart disease (CHD).

Results

Older age and lower social class were strongly associated with an increased risk of each of the four health outcomes measured. After adjustment for individual and practice characteristics, no consistent pattern of better or poorer health in people living in rural areas was found, compared to primary cities. However, individuals living in remote small towns had a lower risk of a hospital admission for CHD and those in very remote rural had lower mortality, both compared with those living in primary cities.

Conclusion

This study has shown how linked data can be used to explore the possible influence of area of residence on health. We were unable to find a consistent pattern that people living in rural areas have materially different health to that of those living in primary cities. Instead, we found stronger relationships between compositional determinants (age, gender and socio-economic status) and health than contextual factors (including rurality).

Keywords

Health determinants Rural health Administrative data-linkage Survey methods

Background

Rural Scotland comprises 89% of Scotland's landmass, and contains 20% of the population, and 27% of those employed [1]. There is growing interest in the health of people living in rural and remote areas, and in the study of health care services provided to them [24]. Urban-rural variations in health outcomes have been studied within Scotland [59] and the UK [10, 11]. Studies so far have used a variety of health outcomes, including long standing illness [12], mortality [13], cancer [1416], hypertension and cardiovascular disease [1720], and respiratory health [5]. The available evidence is derived from specific, one-off projects and the collective evidence is inconclusive [5, 16, 2123]. Some studies in the US, Australia, and Canada have found rural residents to be in poorer health than their urban counterparts [2426]. In Scotland, there is little evidence of important widespread urban-rural differences. A recent literature review about urban-rural health status differentials in developed countries suggested that rurality per se is not associated with poor health, but rural location is a major determinant of the nature, level of access to, and provision of health services [27].

The Scottish NHS resources allocation formula (The Arbuthnott Allocation Formula) is the first in the UK to include a cost adjustment for remoteness and rurality [28]. And the Kerr report highlighted that the rural population tends to have a significant proportion of older people who often have chronic diseases and do require more health care [29]. There is however, limited empirical evidence to indicate whether health outcomes are significantly different between rural and urban Scotland. Using objective health outcome measures, this study will shed light if there are significant differences between people living in rural and urban areas in Scotland.

Most of the previous studies were small area variation analyses and did not include the structure of the healthcare (especially primary care) serving them. Thus, they did not control for either the characteristics of individuals and/or the healthcare services received, either of which might influence health outcomes. Previous studies have suggested that geographical and organizational variations in the structure of primary care services should be considered in studies of health outcomes and health care services [30]. General practices vary in their structural characteristics, their use of health service resources, their standards of clinical care, and in patient outcomes. Structural characteristics of general practices, such as: the partnership size [3133]; whether the practitioner works single-handedly; the age and sex of the general practitioner [3436]; whether the practice provides vocational training [37] or engages in undergraduate medical education [38]; the size and characteristics of the practice list [3941]; and whether the practice is in a rural location [42, 43], have been found to be associated either with process of health care, or with different health outcomes or health care utilization [4448]. There are few female GPs working in rural areas and this leads to reduced choice for patients and poorer access to some treatments [4951].

The characteristics of the population served as well as the practices providing care are complex confounders that previous studies have not adequately accounted for. Information from such studies are of limited use for health care planners, who require representative, regularly updated information, ideally collected for a number of purposes in order to reduce administration costs.

The rationale for this study therefore was to assess whether routinely available national datasets can be used to examine whether there are rural-urban variations in health outcomes, after allowing for differences in the characteristics of the populations, the practices serving them, and the place of residence of the population.

To control for the characteristics of the population and the practices, we need data on the socio-demographic characteristics of the population, characteristics of the general practices serving them, and data on the rural-urban classification of the residence of the population. It is not easy to get such data due to logistical and ethical issues. That is why previous studies on this issue linked different databases to create a dataset for analysis. Most of these studies, however, used aggregated area-based indicators of population health and structure of care [52]. Such aggregation might mask the characteristics of individual general practitioners or practices and thereby affect the results. In epidemiological term, such approaches are prone to ecological fallacy, i.e. area-level aggregate results do not necessary mean that relationships hold at the individual level. Individual level data avoids the problem of ecological fallacy which can arise when area-based data are used [53].

In 2004, a record linkage exercise was undertaken by the Information Services Division (ISD) of NHS Scotland to link both the 1995 and 1998 Scottish Health Survey data to the linked Scottish hospital admission and mortality database (SMR). Its creation provided an ideal opportunity to examine the association between rurality and health outcomes. In order to adjust for some aspects of the structure of the primary care, we have linked this data to the Scottish General Practitioners Census Data (SGPC).

The main focus of the Scottish Health Survey (SHS) was on cardiovascular disease. We therefore included admissions due to coronary heart disease (CHD), total hospital stays and hypertension as health outcome measures. The SHS is linked to death records from the General Register Office for Scotland. We therefore included mortality which is usually used as an overall health outcome indicator.

Methods

Data sources

Individual characteristics

The Scottish Health Survey (SHS) studied a nationally representative sample of people living in private households in Scotland; (n = 7,932 adults aged 16-64 in 1995; and n = 9,047 adults aged 16-74 and children aged 2-15 in 1998) [54]. In both years a particular focus was on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and related risk factors. Each survey collected information about the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of participants, including: age, gender, social class, education and housing tenure. Both surveys are claimed to be the first reliable surveys in Scotland that give a comprehensive picture of the health of the whole population, its biological characteristics and health-related behavior [55]. The surveys were made available through the UK Data Archive at the University of Essex.

The overall aim of the surveys was to estimate the prevalence of certain health conditions and risk factors in Scotland, and to monitor progress towards health and dietary targets [54]. The surveys were conducted by the Joint Health Surveys Unit of the National Centre for Social Research (formerly Social Community Planning Research), and the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at University College London (UCL). To enable regional comparisons the survey divided Scotland into seven regions by aggregating health boards. Both surveys employed stratified, multi-stage random sampling to provide a nationally representative sample[55].

Of those interviewed in 1995, 6,958 informants (and 7,455 adults and 3,211 children in 1998) were subsequently visited by a nurse. Within these visits, at least one usable blood sample was taken from 6,184 adults (in 1995) and from 6,178 adults and 466 children aged 11-15 in 1998 informants. The Information Services Division (ISD) of National Health Services (NHS) Scotland linked the Scottish Health Survey to the Scottish Morbidity Records and made the data available for this study. These data were used to answer our research question in this study.

Definition of rurality

There is no universally agreed definition of what constitutes an 'urban' or 'rural' area [56]. Rurality of where individuals lived were measured using the Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification (SEURC) [57].

The SEURC was selected as a pragmatic definition of rurality in this study. Its advantages include: it takes on board several indicators that are likely to be associated with economic issues, such as the dispersed nature of the population lacking economies of scale and large travelling times affecting access to care; it is available at national level enabling linkage to other routinely collected national datasets base to examine the relationship between rurality, health, health care provision and utilization; it is an appropriate generic definition to describe the variance in the characteristics of the populations living in remote rural areas, the practices serving them, and variations in health and health care between rural and urban areas; it enables analyzing individuals in terms of their rurality and urbanity versus their remoteness and accessibility [57]. The SEURC is being increasingly used in many studies [6, 8, 9, 22, 58, 59]

The SEURC classification divides Scotland into eight categories based on settlement size and remoteness: Primary Cities (settlements with over 125,000 people); Urban Settlements (settlements with between 10,000 and 124,999 people); Accessible Small Towns (settlements with between 3,000 and 10,000 people and within 30 minute drive time of a settlement of 10,000 or more); Remote Small Towns (settlements with between 3,000 and 10,000 people and between 30 and 60 minutes drive time of a settlement of 10,000 or more); Very Remote Small Towns (settlements with between 3,000 and 10,000 people and more than 60 minute drive time away from a settlement of 10,000 or more); Accessible Rural (settlements of less than 3,000 people and within a 30 minute drive time of a settlement of 10,000 or more); Remote Rural (settlements of less than 3,000 people and between 30 and 60 minutes drive time of a settlement of 10,000 or more) and Very Remote Rural (settlements of less than 3,000 people and more than 60 minute drive time of a settlement of 10,000 or more).

Health outcomes

As part of the survey, a nurse took three blood pressure measures for all individuals who gave consent. We used the mean of the three measures and defined people as hypertensive if their systolic blood pressure was ≥ 150 mmHg, or diastolic blood pressure was ≥ 90 mmHg. This definition was taken from the New General Medical Services contract - Quality of Outcome Framework criteria for hypertension [60]. Death records from the General Register Office for Scotland were used to identify all those in the sample who had died by November 2006. Scottish Morbidity Recording (SMR) data routinely collected by ISD, concerning general acute hospital inpatient and day case episodes provided information about hospital admissions due to coronary heart disease (CHD) and total number of days spent in hospital up to November 2006. SMR data go back to January 1981. We used weights provided by the surveys to account for the sampling design and non-response bias.

Practice characteristics

The ISD maintains a dataset of all doctors working as general practitioners in Scotland. For the years 1996 and 1998, we obtained the age and sex of each general practitioner (GP), the size of the partnership that each doctor worked in, the contracted time commitment of each principal (expressed as whole time equivalent -WTE), and the number, age, and gender of people registered with each practitioner. We have linked the Scottish General Practitioners Census to the survey using the serial number and practice code pertaining for each participant in the SHS at the time of the survey. (See details in "Linkage" section) We also ascertained whether the practice had a GP vacancy. We calculated practice-level partnership size and availability of a female practitioner.

Linkage

Everyone participating in the Health Surveys was asked to give explicit consent to their information being passed to ISD for subsequent linkage to routinely available datasets. For those who gave such permission, their health survey information was linked by ISD, on our behalf, to the SMR data. This was done using standard probability matching, based on name, postcode and date of birth. The postcode of each individual was also used by ISD to assign the appropriate SEURC category. The subsequent Scottish Health Survey-linked-to Scottish Morbidity Data (SHS-SMR) dataset was stripped of any identifying information before being released to us. ISD also provided the serial number and practice code pertaining for each participant in the SHS at the time of the survey. This enabled us to link the new SHS-SMR information to the characteristics of each participant's practice.

Our analysis was limited to 15668 survey respondents who said that their information could be linked to the administrative datasets (Table 1). The ISD managed to link 7363 adults aged 16-64 (1995 survey) and 8305 adults aged 16-74 (1998 survey). The linked dataset contained mortality data from 1995 up to November 2006 and hospital admission data for CHD from 1981 up to November 2006.
Table 1

Percent distributions and mean (sd) for individual and practice variables by SEURC

SEURC1

PC%

US%

AST%

RST%

RRST%

AR%

RR%

VRR%

TOTAL

N

5427

4900

1757

434

296

1649

548

645

15668

Age (sd)

42.06 (14.9)

42.62 (14.9)

43.35 (15.1)

45.01 (15.5)

43.25 (15.1)

43.95 (14.5)

44.48 (14.9)

45.11 (14.7)

42.90 (14.9)

Female

56.4

55.9

54.1

59.0

53.7

55.1

49.3

54.3

0.56

Social class

         

professional

5.3

3.1

2.6

3.5

3.3

4.2

4.8

2.1

4.0

intermediate

24.6

20.9

23.6

21.8

18.4

30.9

30.5

30.0

24.3

Skilled non-manual

24.2

23.8

22.2

21.3

23.9

19.9

16.8

21.7

23.0

Skilled manual

19.9

22.8

23.3

21.6

25.7

21.8

21.6

22.3

21.7

Partly-skilled

16.7

20.3

18.5

19.9

17.6

15.8

19.1

14.6

18.0

unskilled

8.3

8.2

8.3

10.4

11.0

6.5

6.6

8.5

8.1

House tenure

         

own

57.4

63.2

63.6

59.4

59.8

66.2

65.8

70.2

61.7

public

34.7

33.0

32.5

35.5

33.8

18.8

14.3

18.6

30.9

private

6.8

2.9

3.1

4.1

4.1

9.2

11.2

6.5

5.4

others

1.2

0.9

0.8

0.9

2.4

5.9

8.8

4.7

2.0

Health outcomes

         

Hypertensive

14.4

14.7

16.0

13.0

20.0

16.5

15.5

16.5

15.1

All-cause death

6.4

6.1

5.8

7.1

5.7

5.9

4.2

4.2

6.0

CHD admissions

4.0

4.5

4.0

3.0

4.0

4.0

4.0

4.4

4.1

Hospital stays2

47.0

50.0

47.0

46.0

55.0

44.0

47.0

51.0

48.2

Practice char

         

wtegps1

4.74

11.2

8.6

8.7 (6.4)

5.55

7.78

9.6

9.4

8.01

0003 (sd)

(19.4)

(73.5)

(40.0)

 

(3.6)

(41.0)

(17.5)

(22.5)

(47.1)

Gpage

42.66

42.84

43.12

41.36

41.06

42.52

42.13

43.09

42.68

(sd)

(4.7)

(4.3)

(4.4)

(4.1)

(4.5)

(4.4)

(3.7)

(5.8)

(4.54)

1 SEURC Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification, PC Primary Cities, US Urban Settlements, AST Accessible Small Towns, RST Remote Small Towns, VRST Very Remote Small Towns, AR Accessible Rural, RR Remote Rural, VRR Very Remote Rural. 2 At least one day or more hospital stays 3, WTE GPs per 1000 Whole Time Equivalent GPs per 1000 population

We were unable to assign a practice to 146 (1.9%) respondents in the 1995 SHS and 87 (1.1%) respondents in the 1998 survey. These individuals were excluded from the analyses. Our analysis was restricted to respondents who were known to be registered with a practice at the time of survey. This enabled us to examine any association between practice characteristics and health. From the available hospitalization data, only the time of the first event is known. We ran separate models, one for all respondents and one excluding respondents who had an event prior to the survey. Comparison of the two models showed no significant difference in the pattern observed, so we have shown results using all available information for respondents.

Analysis

We used hierarchical models to account for the stratified, multi-stage random sampling used in both surveys to provide a nationally representative sample [55]. Observations are nested within seven regions and within 983 general practices. We employed a hierarchical model to account for clustering.

In analyzing the data, we used sampling weights from the survey to account for the sampling design (non-probabilistic) and non-response bias. This provided robust standard errors that relax the assumption of homesckedaciticty and adjust for heterosckedacitcity [61]. The surveys over-sampled rural areas in order to provide sufficient sample sizes within each region.

For each health outcome, we started with a basic model which adjusted for age and gender only. We created five-year age bands to capture the specific effect of age in men and women. Males < 30 years was taken as the reference group. Place of residence was then introduced to examine age-sex standardized differences in outcome between people living in different parts of Scotland. We then introduced socio-economic characteristics. We included a year dummy to capture change in health outcome measures over time, with year 1995 as the base year. The final model also adjusted for practice characteristics including WTE of GPs per 1000 population, and mean GP age. Additional variables about the structure of the practices were then included to see if the model was improved; availability of at least one female GP, whether the practice had a GP vacancy, and practice-level partnership size (total number of GPs in a practice). We compared the models using the Akaike information criterion (AIC) and Bayesian information criterion (BIC), and using 'fitstat' command in Stata.

We used the log likelihood, AIC and BIC to compare the performance of these models. The AIC is defined as AIC = -2ln L+2k, and the BIC is defined as BIC = -2ln L+k ln(N), where ln L is the maximized log likelihood of the model and k is the number of parameters in the mode, and N is the sample size. We preferred the model with larger values of the log likelihood and smaller values of AIC and BIC. We have not presented these results due to space limitation but they are available from the authors. All three criteria favoured the model with WTE of GPs per 1000 population and mean age of GPs in a practice. Including practice structural variables (availability of a female GP, GP vacancy, and number of GPs in a practice) did not improve the model. This could probably be due to WTE of GPs per 1000 population, and mean GP age capturing the significant characteristics of a practice.

The number of observations was reduced when the survey data was linked to the practice and hospitalization (SMR) data. To reduce the probability of getting statistically significant associations by chance (type I error), a small significance level (p < 0.01) was used [62]. The study did not require ethical approval as respondents were not identifiable.

A set of eight urban-rural category dummy variables were created for rurality. Summary statistics for urban-rural categories were compared using the t-test, with Primary Cities (the largest group) as the reference group. The joint significance of differences between categories was measured using the F-test, with seven degrees of freedom.

The dependent variables, prevalence of hypertension and all-cause mortality, were dichotomous variables, while hospital admissions due to CHD and total number of hospital admissions were non-negative count values. For the dichotomous variables, multivariate logit models were generated.

For the non-negative integer count variables, negative binomial regression was used. The analyses used Stata version 11.0 [63].

Results

The distribution of the population across the eight geographic categories and socio-demographic characteristics by survey year is presented in Table 1. The three rural categories contained 12% of the total survey respondents. The pooled dataset consisted of 15,668 subjects (7363 participants in the 1995 and 8305 in 1998 survey: Table 1). The average age (standard deviation: sd) was 42.9 (14.9) years. Both surveys had a similar distribution of participants with respect to gender, social class, housing tenure and place of residence. The characteristics of the practices serving the survey participants were also similar in the two surveys: GP principals working in rural areas tended to be older, male and single-handed, when compared with those in primary cities (data not shown).

The mean (sd) systolic and diastolic blood pressure of participants was 129.8 (18.0) mmHg and 71.7 (12.0) mmHg respectively. Overall, 2027 (15%) of participants were classified as hypertensive, 942 (6%) died, 642(4%) were admitted to hospital for CHD and 7551 (48.2%) had spent at least one day or more in hospital.

Hypertension

Older people were more likely to be hypertensive in both sexes (Table 2 Model 1). Adjusting for rurality, individuals living in remote small towns were less likely to have hypertension than those living in primary cities (OR = 0.57, 99% CI 0.33 to 1.00, p = 0.01: Table 2 Model 2). This relationship did not persist when we control for the socio-economic differences. Living in publicly owned housing was highly associated with an increased probability of hypertension (OR = 1.34, 99% CI 1.11 to 1.60, p < 0.001: Table 2 Model 3). When practice characteristics and year dummies were introduced, the significant association between living in remote small towns and hypertension did not reach our threshold for statistical significance (p = 0.096). Being older and living in publicly owned housing was associated with a statistically significant higher likelihood of hypertension in the fully adjusted model.
Table 2

Association between hypertension and location, without and with adjustments for population and practice characteristics

Hypertension

 

Model 1

  

Model 2

  

Model 3

  

Model 4 2

 
 

OR*

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

Age and sex

            

Male < 30

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

Male30_34

1.86

(0.96 3.58)

0.015

1.88

(0.97 3.62)

0.013

1.77

(0.88 3.54)

0.036

1.90

(0.93 3.86)

0.020

Male35_39

2.52

(1.34 4.75)

< 0.001

2.52

(1.34 4.75)

< 0.001

2.34

(1.19 4.59)

0.001

2.30

(1.15 4.62)

0.002

Male40_44

5.29

(2.98 9.41)

< 0.001

5.30

(2.98 9.44)

< 0.001

5.20

(2.76 9.80)

< 0.001

5.14

(2.68 9.86)

< 0.001

Male45_49

7.16

(4.03 12.71)

< 0.001

7.21

(4.06 12.79)

< 0.001

6.72

(3.58 12.61)

< 0.001

7.33

(3.84 13.96)

< 0.001

Male50_54

11.08

(6.43 19.07)

< 0.001

11.09

(6.44 19.12)

< 0.001

10.71

(5.89 19.49)

< 0.001

11.24

(6.09 20.75)

< 0.001

Male55_59

13.91

(8.02 24.11)

< 0.001

14.01

(8.08 24.30)

< 0.001

13.41

(7.39 24.33)

< 0.001

13.51

(7.34 24.87)

< 0.001

Male60_64

18.55

(10.86 31.70)

< 0.001

18.67

(10.92 31.94)

< 0.001

17.53

(9.81 31.35)

< 0.001

19.35

(10.67 35.11)

< 0.001

Male65_69

22.00

(12.20 39.66)

< 0.001

22.46

(12.45 40.51)

< 0.001

20.91

(11.07 39.47)

< 0.001

23.11

(11.86 45.04)

< 0.001

Male70_74

22.45

(11.88 42.42)

< 0.001

22.89

(12.11 43.25)

< 0.001

21.01

(10.63 41.50)

< 0.001

20.89

(10.36 42.12)

< 0.001

Female < 30

0.33

(0.12 0.90)

0.004

0.33

(0.12 0.90)

0.005

0.28

(0.09 0.89)

0.005

0.33

(0.10 1.07)

0.015

Female30_34

0.45

(0.17 1.16)

0.030

0.45

(0.18 1.17)

0.031

0.38

(0.14 1.06)

0.016

0.40

(0.14 1.15)

0.025

Female35_39

1.15

(0.58 2.29)

0.589

1.16

(0.59 2.31)

0.571

1.13

(0.53 2.39)

0.675

1.14

(0.52 2.50)

0.657

Female40_44

1.90

(1.00 3.60)

0.010

1.91

(1.01 3.62)

0.009

1.81

(0.90 3.61)

0.028

1.84

(0.86 3.92)

0.039

Female45_49

3.75

(2.09 6.72)

< 0.001

3.78

(2.10 6.79)

< 0.001

3.57

(1.89 6.77)

< 0.001

3.56

(1.86 6.82)

< 0.001

Female50_54

7.14

(4.06 12.55)

< 0.001

7.18

(4.09 12.62)

< 0.001

6.60

(3.52 12.38)

< 0.001

7.19

(3.83 13.51)

< 0.001

Female55_59

9.37

(5.37 16.34)

< 0.001

9.49

(5.44 16.55)

< 0.001

8.75

(4.71 16.25)

< 0.001

9.09

(4.83 17.09)

< 0.001

Female60_64

16.30

(9.50 27.97)

< 0.001

16.31

(9.48 28.07)

< 0.001

14.19

(7.65 26.29)

< 0.001

14.88

(7.90 28.01)

< 0.001

Female65_69

21.90

(12.35 38.82)

< 0.001

22.20

(12.50 39.44)

< 0.001

19.77

(10.42 37.49)

< 0.001

20.90

(10.69 40.88)

< 0.001

Female70_74

35.42

(19.90 63.05)

< 0.001

36.02

(20.22 64.18)

< 0.001

32.74

(17.26 62.13)

< 0.001

33.11

(17.35 63.17)

< 0.001

Location1

            

PC

   

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

US

   

1.01

(0.84 1.21)

0.925

1.04

(0.86 1.26)

0.573

1.06

(0.87 1.29)

0.452

AST

   

1.03

(0.78 1.37)

0.758

1.06

(0.80 1.40)

0.602

1.09

(0.82 1.45)

0.458

RST

   

0.57

(0.33 1.00)

0.010

0.60

(0.35 1.05)

0.018

0.68

(0.37 1.24)

0.096

VRST

   

1.40

(0.86 2.27)

0.074

1.59

(1.03 2.45)

0.006

1.50

(0.95 2.35)

0.021

AR

   

0.96

(0.74 1.25)

0.682

1.02

(0.78 1.34)

0.868

1.03

(0.77 1.37)

0.809

RR

   

0.99

(0.63 1.56)

0.949

1.04

(0.65 1.64)

0.845

1.08

(0.68 1.72)

0.655

VRR

   

1.05

(0.76 1.46)

0.679

1.17

(0.84 1.63)

0.234

1.09

(0.75 1.60)

0.542

Social Class

            

Intermediate

   

ref.

ref.

       

Professional

      

1.18

(0.78 1.80)

0.305

1.12

(0.72 1.73)

0.506

Skilled non-manual

      

1.14

(0.89 1.46)

0.110

1.12

(0.86 1.45)

0.279

Skilled manual

      

1.13

(0.89 1.43)

0.146

1.17

(0.91 1.51)

0.100

Partly skilled

      

1.10

(0.86 1.40)

0.335

1.14

(0.88 1.48)

0.190

Unskilled

      

1.10

(0.81 1.50)

0.409

1.13

(0.81 1.57)

0.338

House ownership

            

Owned

      

ref.

  

ref.

  

Publicly rented

      

1.34

(1.11 1.60)

< 0.001

1.35

(1.11 1.63)

< 0.001

Privately rented

      

1.08

(0.66 1.60)

0.690

1.13

(0.68 1.87)

0.528

Others

      

1.09

(0.57 2.10)

0.721

1.15

(0.57 2.29)

0.607

Practice char.

            

WTE GPs per 1000 pop.

         

0.83

(0.49 1.40)

0.361

GPs age (mean)

         

0.99

(0.98 1.01)

0.340

Survey year 1998

         

0.98

(0.81 1.19)

0.822

Log pseudo-likelihood

-4135

  

-4127

  

-3931

  

-3541

  

Sample size

13227

  

13216

  

12424

  

11193

  

Joint significance of rural

         

X2(7) = 8.19

p = 0.31 6

 

* OR Odds Ratio ref. reference group 1 PC Primary Cities, US Urban Settlements, AST Accessible Small Towns, RST Remote Small Towns, VRST Very Remote Small Towns, AR Accessible Rural, RR Remote Rural, VRR Very Remote Rural. 2 p-values calculated using standard errors clustered by practice

None of the practice characteristics were associated with hypertension (Table 2 Model 4). The joint significance test indicated no significant variation in the chances of hypertension across the eight urban rural categories.

Mortality

In the first model, older males and females were more likely to die males less than 30 years old (Table 3 Model 1). The risk estimates for those aged fifty years and older were highly significant (p < 0.001). After adjustment for rurality, older age remained strongly associated with mortality. Individuals in remote rural (OR = 0.51, 99% CI 0.30 to 0.87, p < 0.01) and very remote rural (OR = 0.45, 99% CI 0.25 to 0.81, p < 0.001) were less likely to die than those in primary cities (Model 2). After allowing for the social status and housing tenure of individuals, those in very remote rural areas still had a lower chance of dying, but the strength of the association was diminished slightly. Individuals with the highest socio-economic status (professionals) had significantly lower likelihood of mortality than the intermediate socio-economic group (Table 3 Model 3). Living in publicly owned housing was associated with higher mortality. The final model that adjusted for the practice characteristics indicated that individuals in very remote rural areas have lower mortality compared to primary cities. Older age and lower social class remained significantly associated with mortality. Indeed the relationships with social class increased (in terms of magnitude and significance) after adjustment for practice characteristics.
Table 3

Association between all-cause mortality and location, without and with adjustments for population and practice characteristics

 

Model 1

Model 2

 

Model 3

Model 4

 

OR*

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

Age and sex

            

Male < 30

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

Male30_34

1.62

(0.43 6.12)

0.352

1.64

(0.43 6.20)

0.340

2.27

(0.47 11.02)

0.181

1.80

(0.34 9.54)

0.363

Male35_39

1.62

(0.46 5.67)

0.323

1.62

(0.46 5.66)

0.324

2.40

(0.55 10.49)

0.125

2.43

(0.56 10.63)

0.120

Male40_44

3.13

(1.00 9.81)

0.010

3.16

(1.00 9.93)

0.010

4.72

(1.13 19.74)

0.005

4.24

(0.99 18.14)

0.010

Male45_49

4.52

(1.50 13.57)

< 0.001

4.57

(1.52 13.74)

< 0.001

6.63

(1.65 26.61)

< 0.001

5.82

(1.42 23.78)

0.001

Male50_54

12.25

(4.41 33.99)

< 0.001

12.36

(4.44 34.37)

< 0.001

17.80

(4.70 67.35)

< 0.001

16.31

(4.29 61.94)

< 0.001

Male55_59

19.99

(7.54 53.00)

< 0.001

20.28

(7.63 53.87)

< 0.001

27.61

(7.59 100.41)

< 0.001

25.59

(7.04 92.96)

< 0.001

Male60_64

36.14

(13.67 95.57)

< 0.001

36.81

(13.92 97.38)

< 0.001

50.63

(13.77 186.17)

< 0.001

44.62

(12.08 164.77)

< 0.001

Male65_69

54.81

(19.96 150.52)

< 0.001

55.99

(20.34 154.1)

< 0.001

80.85

(21.1 308.8)

< 0.001

77.03

(19.54 303.74)

< 0.001

Male70_74

93.97

(34.90 252.9)

< 0.001

97.80

(36.13 264.7)

< 0.001

138.12

(36.5 521.9)

< 0.001

131.21

(33.64 511.86)

< 0.001

Female < 30

0.43

(0.10 1.85)

0.135

0.42

(0.10 1.84)

0.131

0.56

(0.10 3.25)

0.394

0.37

(0.05 2.71)

0.201

Female30_34

1.55

(0.44 5.51)

0.372

1.54

(0.43 5.47)

0.379

1.87

(0.40 8.81)

0.299

1.87

(0.40 8.80)

0.296

Female35_39

0.89

(0.21 3.74)

0.830

0.89

(0.21 3.76)

0.836

1.29

(0.24 6.96)

0.695

0.85

(0.13 5.56)

0.822

Female40_44

4.29

(1.32 13.98)

0.001

4.34

(1.33 14.17)

0.001

6.10

(1.41 26.40)

0.001

5.20

(1.17 23.03)

0.004

Female45_49

2.85

(0.88 9.16)

0.021

2.89

(0.90 9.32)

0.020

4.02

(0.94 17.26)

0.014

3.43

(0.77 15.37)

0.034

Female50_54

9.31

(3.45 25.15)

< 0.001

9.37

(3.46 25.39)

< 0.001

13.75

(3.65 51.80)

< 0.001

13.50

(3.57 51.09)

< 0.001

Female55_59

14.11

(5.27 37.79)

< 0.001

14.13

(5.27 37.91)

< 0.001

19.26

(5.21 71.17)

< 0.001

18.49

(5.00 68.38)

< 0.001

Female60_64

18.84

(7.14 49.73)

< 0.001

19.00

(7.20 50.14)

< 0.001

25.75

(7.01 94.55)

< 0.001

23.26

(6.32 85.70)

< 0.001

Female65_69

28.75

(10.62 77.79)

< 0.001

29.12

(10.76 78.77)

< 0.001

38.18

(10.2 142.31)

< 0.001

36.36

(9.48 139.44)

< 0.001

Female70_74

47.56

(17.77 127.29)

< 0.001

49.20

(18.39 131.6)

< 0.001

65.80

(17.7 244.67)

< 0.001

61.44

(16.02 235.61)

< 0.001

Location1

            

PC

   

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

US

   

0.87

(0.68 1.12)

0.152

0.89

(0.70 1.14)

0.238

0.93

(0.71 1.20)

0.443

AST

   

0.78

(0.52 1.18)

0.118

0.78

(0.51 1.19)

0.127

0.84

(0.54 1.30)

0.293

RST

   

0.56

(0.29 1.09)

0.025

0.63

(0.33 1.19)

0.061

0.79

(0.44 1.43)

0.307

VRST

   

0.60

(0.34 1.05)

0.018

0.60

(0.33 1.09)

0.027

0.65

(0.36 1.17)

0.059

AR

   

0.83

(0.58 1.20)

0.201

0.92

(0.64 1.34)

0.584

0.97

(0.66 1.42)

0.814

RR

   

0.51

(0.30 0.87)

0.001

0.59

(0.32 1.06)

0.020

0.58

(0.31 1.07)

0.023

VRR

   

0.45

(0.25 0.81)

< 0.001

0.54

(0.32 0.92)

0.003

0.53

(0.30 0.94)

0.004

Social Class

            

Intermediate

      

ref.

  

ref.

  

Professional

      

0.37

(0.14 0.93)

0.006

0.27

(0.09 0.82)

0.002

Skilled non-manual

      

1.07

(0.76 1.51)

0.607

1.08

(0.75 1.55)

0.591

Skilled manual

      

1.36

(0.97 1.90)

0.020

1.43

(1.00 2.04)

0.009

Partly skilled

      

1.33

(0.93 1.89)

0.039

1.48

(1.02 2.14)

0.007

Unskilled

      

1.39

(0.93 2.08)

0.032

1.45

(0.95 2.22)

0.024

House ownership

            

Owned

      

ref.

  

ref.

  

Publicly rented

      

2.10

(1.64 2.70)

< 0.001

2.09

(1.61 2.71)

< 0.001

Privately rented

      

1.90

(0.99 3.65)

0.011

2.04

(1.05 3.98)

0.006

Others

      

2.88

(1.27 6.53)

0.001

2.99

(1.23 7.24)

0.001

Practice char.

            

WTE GPs per 1000 pop.

         

0.89

(0.44 1.81)

0.670

GPs age (mean)

         

1.00

(0.97 1.02)

0.911

Survey year 1998

         

0.93

(0.71 1.22)

0.492

Log pseudo-likelihood

-2338

  

-2326

  

-2156

  

-1945

  
 

15435

           

Sample size

   

15423

  

14448

  

13019

  

Joint significance of rural

         

X2(7) = 11.5

p = 0.116

 

* OR Odds Ratio, ref. reference group 1 PC Primary Cities, US Urban Settlements, AST Accessible Small Towns, RST Remote Small Towns, VRST Very Remote Small Towns, AR Accessible Rural, RR Remote Rural, VRR Very Remote Rural. 2 p-values calculated using standard errors clustered by practice

Hospital admissions due to CHD

In the final model which adjusted for individual and practice characteristics, and year of survey, older age, and public housing tenure was associated with significantly higher levels of admission for CHD than the respective reference group (Table 4 Model 4). There was also some evidence of a relationship between hospital admissions for CHD and living in remote small towns (p = 0.009).
Table 4

Association between hospital admissions for CHD and location with adjustments for population and practice characteristics

  

Model 1

  

Model 2

  

Model 3

  

Model 4

 
 

OR*

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

Age and sex

            

Male < 30

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

Male30_34

6.21

(0.49 78.15)

0.063

6.25

(0.50 77.82)

0.061

4.75

(0.40 56.48)

0.105

4.75

(0.38 60.17)

0.114

Male35_39

6.12

(0.67 55.92)

0.035

6.15

(0.67 56.24)

0.035

4.90

(0.54 44.21)

0.063

3.01

(0.29 31.08)

0.220

Male40_44

33.55

(4.59 245.36)

< 0.001

33.57

(4.62 243.96)

< 0.001

27.58

(3.69 206.35)

< 0.001

23.22

(3.06 175.95)

< 0.001

Male45_49

74.16

(9.96 551.96)

< 0.001

75.59

(10.16 562.40)

< 0.001

59.18

(8.02 436.71)

< 0.001

53.74

(7.14 404.44)

< 0.001

Male50_54

170.39

(23.19 1251.92)

< 0.001

170.39

(23.45 1238.11)

< 0.001

139.90

(18.76 1043.33)

< 0.001

132.91

(17.38 1016.13)

< 0.001

Male55_59

205.77

(29.19 1450.64)

< 0.001

203.74

(29.14 1424.52)

< 0.001

161.44

(22.47 1160.04)

< 0.001

135.21

(18.49 988.55)

< 0.001

Male60_64

193.14

(27.90 1336.90)

< 0.001

193.89

(28.08 1338.57)

< 0.001

154.88

(21.68 1106.68)

< 0.001

131.83

(18.05 962.63)

< 0.001

Male65_69

161.35

(22.96 1133.66)

< 0.001

174.50

(24.85 1225.56)

< 0.001

139.04

(19.25 1004.24)

< 0.001

169.90

(22.13 1304.20)

< 0.001

Male70_74

163.06

(22.48 1182.70)

< 0.001

184.75

(25.31 1348.78)

< 0.001

156.26

(20.71 1178.90)

< 0.001

181.49

(22.35 1473.79)

< 0.001

Female < 30

0.00

(0.00 0.00)

< 0.001

0.00

(0.00 0.00)

< 0.001

0.00

(0.00 0.00)

< 0.001

0.00

(0.00 0.00)

< 0.001

Female30_34

1.48

(0.11 20.48)

0.699

1.48

(0.11 20.52)

0.699

1.23

(0.09 17.22)

0.843

1.16

(0.08 16.39)

0.883

Female35_39

9.63

(1.10 84.70)

0.007

9.76

(1.11 85.62)

0.007

8.34

(0.94 73.95)

0.012

5.29

(0.51 54.44)

0.065

Female40_44

7.03

(0.82 60.24)

0.019

7.21

(0.85 61.37)

0.017

6.18

(0.74 51.59)

0.027

5.94

(0.70 50.15)

0.031

Female45_49

16.62

(2.18 126.56)

< 0.001

17.00

(2.24 129.15)

< 0.001

11.72

(1.54 89.09)

0.002

11.38

(1.46 88.97)

0.002

Female50_54

35.63

(4.85 262.00)

< 0.001

35.93

(4.89 264.15)

< 0.001

30.84

(4.15 228.96)

< 0.001

28.37

(3.81 211.34)

< 0.001

Female55_59

73.93

(10.25 533.24)

< 0.001

75.52

(10.53 541.46)

< 0.001

51.40

(7.27 363.54)

< 0.001

41.82

(5.76 303.45)

< 0.001

Female60_64

80.94

(11.24 583.04)

< 0.001

80.31

(11.20 575.85)

< 0.001

65.97

(9.06 480.42)

< 0.001

57.36

(7.57 434.48)

< 0.001

Female65_69

60.50

(8.11 451.47)

< 0.001

67.63

(9.01 507.71)

< 0.001

48.66

(6.41 369.24)

< 0.001

53.11

(6.58 428.91)

< 0.001

Female70_74

77.00

(10.30 575.79)

< 0.001

81.05

(10.83 606.71)

< 0.001

69.78

(9.06 537.59)

< 0.001

89.42

(10.84 737.58)

< 0.001

Location1

            

PC

   

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

US

   

0.94

(0.65 1.36)

0.649

1.03

(0.71 1.48)

0.860

1.08

(0.74 1.57)

0.666

AST

   

0.89

(0.52 1.53)

0.572

0.98

(0.55 1.73)

0.916

0.99

(0.57 1.71)

0.878

RST

   

0.37

(0.16 0.86)

0.002

0.41

(0.16 1.03)

0.013

0.34

(0.10 1.14)

0.009

VRST

   

0.65

(0.13 3.16)

0.486

0.70

(0.10 5.04)

0.646

1.06

(0.12 9.60)

0.995

AR

   

0.69

(0.40 1.18)

0.077

0.78

(0.45 1.35)

0.246

0.83

(0.48 1.42)

0.326

RR

   

0.68

(0.35 1.35)

0.152

0.86

(0.41 1.84)

0.621

0.96

(0.45 2.08)

0.735

VRR

   

0.49

(0.26 0.90)

0.003

0.57

(0.31 1.03)

0.015

0.70

(0.37 1.35)

0.087

Social Class

            

Intermediate

      

ref.

  

ref.

  

Professional

      

0.61

(0.27 1.36)

0.112

0.58

(0.26 1.28)

0.073

Skilled non-manual

      

0.99

(0.61 1.61)

0.959

0.99

(0.60 1.64)

0.935

Skilled manual

      

1.27

(0.81 1.97)

0.171

1.17

(0.74 1.85)

0.358

Partly skilled

      

1.19

(0.75 1.91)

0.331

1.16

(0.71 1.91)

0.450

Unskilled

      

1.36

(0.75 2.46)

0.182

1.28

(0.67 2.45)

0.315

House ownership

            

Owned

      

ref.

  

ref.

  

Publicly rented

      

1.75

(1.23 2.51)

< 0.001

1.75

(1.19 2.57)

< 0.001

Privately rented

      

1.14

(0.41 3.22)

0.738

1.24

(0.41 3.74)

0.605

Others

      

1.81

(0.66 5.00)

0.131

2.02

(0.71 5.80)

0.095

Practice char.

            

WTE GPs per 1000 pop.

         

1.32

(0.59 2.96)

0.382

GPs age (mean)

         

0.99

(0.95 1.02)

0.271

Survey year 1998

         

0.57

(0.39 0.83)

0.110

Log pseudo-likelihood

-2806

  

-2799

  

-2710

  

-2425

  

Sample size

15435

  

15423

  

14448

  

13019

  

Joint significance of rural

         

X2(7) = 9.84

p = 0.197

 

* OR Odds Ratio ref. reference group 1 PC Primary Cities, US Urban Settlements, AST Accessible Small Towns, RST Remote Small Towns, VRST Very Remote Small Towns, AR Accessible Rural, RR Remote Rural, VRR Very Remote Rural. 2 p-values calculated using standard errors clustered by practice

Total hospital stay

As expected, older individuals had more hospital stays than younger individuals, in both sexes (Table 5 Model 4). Individuals living in public housing had significantly more hospital stays than people who owned their house. Adjusted for individual and practice characteristics, there was no association between total hospital stays and place of residence.
Table 5

Association between total hospital stays and location with adjustments for population and practice characteristics

  

Model 1

  

Model 2

  

Model 3

  

Model 4

 
 

OR*

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

OR

(99% CI)

P > z

Age and sex

            

Male < 30

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

ref.

  

Male30_34

1.89

(0.70 5.09)

0.099

1.84

(0.74 4.56)

0.084

1.52

(0.77 2.99)

0.115

1.44

(0.71 2.93)

0.204

Male35_39

1.22

(0.80 1.87)

0.228

1.21

(0.80 1.84)

0.230

1.23

(0.78 1.95)

0.247

1.08

(0.58 2.01)

0.753

Male40_44

2.75

(1.00 7.51)

0.010

2.69

(1.08 6.75)

0.005

1.79

(1.03 3.13)

0.007

1.85

(0.99 3.48)

0.013

Male45_49

2.12

(1.22 3.67)

< 0.001

2.12

(1.23 3.64)

< 0.001

1.90

(1.12 3.24)

0.002

1.80

(0.99 3.25)

0.011

Male50_54

2.91

(1.76 4.79)

< 0.001

2.87

(1.79 4.60)

< 0.001

2.68

(1.65 4.36)

< 0.001

2.65

(1.45 4.90)

< 0.001

Male55_59

3.93

(2.68 5.78)

< 0.001

3.97

(2.73 5.80)

< 0.001

3.76

(2.46 5.74)

< 0.001

4.08

(2.35 6.90)

< 0.001

Male60_64

6.49

(3.94 10.68)

< 0.001

6.57

(3.97 10.88)

< 0.001

6.35

(3.60 11.20)

< 0.001

5.82

(3.21 10.68)

< 0.001

Male65_69

5.29

(3.53 7.91)

< 0.001

5.38

(3.65 7.94)

< 0.001

4.96

(3.25 7.59)

< 0.001

9.02

(5.22 15.58)

< 0.001

Male70_74

7.57

(5.01 11.44)

< 0.001

7.82

(5.23 11.70)

< 0.001

6.90

(4.48 10.63)

< 0.001

12.11

(6.91 21.06)

< 0.001

Female < 30

0.96

(0.62 1.47)

0.787

0.98

(0.64 1.49)

0.887

0.82

(0.51 1.33)

0.291

0.72

(0.41 1.26)

0.130

Female30_34

1.90

(1.24 2.90)

< 0.001

1.82

(1.20 2.75)

< 0.001

1.37

(0.83 2.25)

0.104

1.18

(0.64 2.12)

0.500

Female35_39

1.71

(1.10 2.67)

0.002

1.69

(1.11 2.56)

0.001

1.39

(0.89 2.16)

0.056

1.50

(0.80 2.75)

0.098

Female40_44

2.01

(1.26 3.19)

< 0.001

2.01

(1.29 3.14)

< 0.001

1.82

(1.12 2.96)

0.002

1.63

(0.94 2.80)

0.022

Female45_49

2.58

(1.57 4.26)

< 0.001

2.65

(1.61 4.37)

< 0.001

2.51

(1.41 4.46)

< 0.001

1.96

(1.06 3.64)

0.005

Female50_54

3.03

(1.99 4.62)

< 0.001

3.05

(2.03 4.57)

< 0.001

2.92

(1.85 4.63)

< 0.001

3.35

(1.83 5.94)

< 0.001

Female55_59

4.04

(2.78 5.89)

< 0.001

4.02

(2.80 5.78)

< 0.001

3.17

(2.12 4.75)

< 0.001

3.50

(2.01 6.11)

< 0.001

Female60_64

4.50

(2.82 7.19)

< 0.001

4.50

(2.90 6.98)

< 0.001

3.81

(2.48 5.83)

< 0.001

3.87

(2.28 6.52)

< 0.001

Female65_69

4.70

(2.88 7.68)

< 0.001

4.72

(2.92 7.63)

< 0.001

4.40

(2.43 7.96)

< 0.001

7.70

(3.67 16.15)

< 0.001

Female70_74

8.51

(5.73 12.64)

< 0.001

8.53

(5.81 12.51)

< 0.001

8.04

(5.12 12.63)

< 0.001

14.02

(7.78 25.24)

< 0.001

Location1

            

PC

   

ref.

  

ref.

     

US

   

0.85

(0.69 1.06)

0.061

0.87

(0.69 1.08)

0.098

0.86

(0.69 1.08)

0.088

AST

   

0.99

(0.65 1.49)

0.934

0.85

(0.60 1.19)

0.204

0.97

(0.65 1.46)

0.841

RST

   

0.71

(0.43 1.19)

0.089

0.69

(0.44 1.09)

0.037

0.89

(0.50 1.51)

0.496

VRST

   

1.25

(0.72 2.17)

0.301

1.08

(0.71 1.67)

0.625

1.26

(0.67 2.32)

0.364

AR

   

0.67

(0.46 0.98)

0.006

0.69

(0.51 0.95)

0.003

0.80

(0.57 1.08)

0.054

RR

   

0.80

(0.46 1.37)

0.286

1.08

(0.55 2.12)

0.777

1.39

(0.54 3.49)

0.388

VRR

   

0.93

(0.60 1.44)

0.659

1.04

(0.73 1.48)

0.791

0.97

(0.54 1.38)

0.433

Social Class

            

Intermediate

      

ref.

  

ref.

  

Professional

      

0.42

(0.27 0.63)

< 0.001

0.39

(0.26 0.58)

< 0.001

Skilled non-manual

      

0.93

(0.69 1.25)

0.534

1.00

(0.73 1.36)

0.988

Skilled manual

      

0.95

(0.72 1.28)

0.682

1.00

(0.74 1.36)

0.989

Partly skilled

      

1.07

(0.77 1.49)

0.637

1.24

(0.85 1.81)

0.139

Unskilled

      

1.24

(0.84 1.86)

0.154

1.28

(0.85 1.93)

0.130

House ownership

            

Owned

      

ref.

  

ref.

  

Publicly rented

      

2.19

(1.70 2.74)

< 0.001

2.18

(1.69 2.81)

< 0.001

Privately rented

      

1.12

(0.70 1.71)

0.519

1.16

(0.71 1.90)

0.443

Others

      

1.44

(0.81 2.19)

0.058

1.36

(0.74 2.58)

0.185

Practice char.

            

WTE GPs per 1000 pop.

         

1.31

(0.64 2.68)

0.332

GPs age (mean)

         

1.01

(0.99 1.04)

0.164

Survey year 1998

         

0.37

(0.30 0.45)

0.201

Log pseudo-likelihood

-36195

  

-36152

  

-33270

  

-29764

  

Sample size

15435

  

15423

  

14448

  

13019

  

Joint significance of rural

         

X2(7) = 8.64

p = 0.278

 

* OR Odds Ratio ref. reference group 1 PC Primary Cities, US Urban Settlements, AST Accessible Small Towns, RST Remote Small Towns, VRST Very Remote Small Towns, AR Accessible Rural, RR Remote Rural, VRR Very Remote Rural. 2 p-values calculated using standard errors clustered by practice

Discussion

Our analyses of four health outcomes using individual-based data adjusted for the characteristics of people living in different parts of Scotland and the general practices serving them, failed to reveal a consistent pattern of substantially different health among those living in rural areas compared with primary cities. Older age and living in publicly owned housing appeared to be more important determinants of health than rurality or structure of the practices serving the population.

Producing information about the socio-demographic characteristics of individuals living in different urban-rural areas, the practices serving them and relevant health outcomes is currently not straightforward because of the lack of a dataset that contains everything. We have shown that it is possible to link different routinely collected datasets to explore urban-rural issues. An alternative approach would be to conduct specific large-scale epidemiological surveys, which tend to be more expensive.

The health surveys used in our study were nationally representative, so should produce more representative results for Scotland as a whole than studies representing particular groups or places. The SHS linked to the SEURC over-sampled rural areas in order to provide sufficient sample sizes within each region. The SHS also provided Sampling weights to account for the sampling design and non-response bias. These gave us enough population in remote rural areas and made our results robust. We overcame the limitation of area-based analyses by looking at individual-based socio-economic characteristics.

To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to examine the association between rurality and health in Scotland, after adjusting for the demographic and socio-economic characteristics of the individuals living in different areas, and the characteristics of the general practices serving them. The few international studies that adjusted for the structure of care have tended to use area-based aggregated data rather than individual-based information [52, 6467]. This is in part due to lack of relevant data.

A limitation of the study was the small number of health indicators available for analysis. Health is a complex issue, with many factors influencing health status. Rurality is one factor that has been proposed as an important influence on health, but it is not easy to ascertain whether place or other physical, social and cultural environmental factors (e.g., pollution, traffic and neighborhood noise) are important. We were unable to examine any of these factors. Furthermore, in addition to demographic and socio-economic factors, there are other important influences on health, such as drinking alcohol, smoking and substance abuse. We were unable to determine whether these potential confounding variables affected our results. As wellbeing is a combination of physical and mental health, adjusting for psychological problems might have produced different results.

Routine data are primarily collected for administrative purposes and their accuracy has been questioned [68]. Population-based, administrative data sets have been used to assess service utilization - among other outcomes - for many years, and the data linkage and analysis procedures have been validated and well-established [69, 70]. The use of administrative data eliminates biases associated with the use of self-report data and attrition problems common in studies involving long-term follow-up. On the other hand, routinely collected administrative data can suffer from problems with completeness and accuracy data collection, issues which are not under the direct control of researchers and which can be difficult to quantify [71].

Most previous studies of rural-urban differences in health have adjusted for the demographic and/or socio-economic characteristics of the population [12, 72]. Few studies in the US, and only one study in the UK, have allowed for the structure of health care providers [52, 6467]. This is in part due to lack of relevant data. Studies in the US have found higher mortality in areas with fewer primary care doctors [6467]. The study in England concluded that mortality levels were weakly associated with the characteristics of practices delivering primary medical care [52]. That study used health authority aggregated data about the structure of care. Such aggregation might mask the characteristics of individual general practitioners or practices and thereby affect overall results. In our study, the practice characteristics assessed were not associated with the health outcomes measured. Using individual-based data, we did not find strong or consistent significant associations between the various health indicators assessed and location, after allowing for population and practice characteristics.

Conclusions

Compositional determinants of health (age and gender) and socio-economic characteristics were found to be more strongly associated with the health outcomes examined than contextual factors (including rurality). Similar studies, using more health measures, should be carried out to confirm or refute our findings.

Declarations

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge the UK Data Archive at the University of Essex for providing the data for analysis and the Information Services Division Scotland for linking the Scottish Health Survey to the Scottish Morbidity Records and made the data available for this study. Authors bear sole responsibility for the analysis and interpretation.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Canadian Centre for Applied Research in Cancer Control (ARCC) "Advancing health economics, services, policy and ethics", Cancer Research Centre
(2)
University of Aberdeen
(3)
University of Manchester
(4)
Faculty of Medicine, School of Population and Public Health, University of British Columbia

References

  1. Scottish Executive-Health Department: Rural Scotland: A New Approach. 2000Google Scholar
  2. McColl E: Primary Health Care in Rural Areas: Issues of Equity and Resource Management. Book. 1993, Newcastle, Centre for Health Services ResearchGoogle Scholar
  3. Carter D, et al: Health Care in a rural setting. 2005, British Medical AssociationGoogle Scholar
  4. Fearn R: Rural health care: a British success or a tale of unmet need?. Soc Sci Med. 1987, 24 (3): 263-274. 10.1016/0277-9536(87)90053-0.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Iversen L, Hannaford PC, Price DB, Godden DJ: Is Living in a Rural Area Good for Your Respiratory Health?: Results From a Cross-sectional Study in Scotland. Chest. 2005, 128 (4): 2059-2067. 10.1378/chest.128.4.2059.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Levin KA: Urban-rural differences in self-reported limiting long-term illness in Scotland. J Public Health. 2003, 25 (4): 295-302. 10.1093/pubmed/fdg084.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Levin KA, Leyland A, Alastair H: Urban/Rural Inequalities in Ischemic Heart Disease in Scotland, 1981-1999. Am J Public Health. 2006, 96 (1): 145-151. 10.2105/AJPH.2004.051193.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Levin KA, Leyland A: Urban/rural inequalities in suicide in Scotland, 1981-1999. Soc Sci Med. 2005, 60 (12): 2877-2890. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.025.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Levin KA, Leyland A: A comparison of health inequalities in urban and rural Scotland. Social Science & Medicine. 2005, Corrected Proof.Google Scholar
  10. Lewis G, Booth M: Reginal differences in mental health in Great Britain. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1992, 46: 608-611. 10.1136/jech.46.6.608.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  11. Weich S, Twigg L, Lewis G: Rural/non-rural differences in rates of common mental disorders in Britain: prospective multilevel cohort study. Br J Psychiatry. 2006, 188: 51-57. 10.1192/bjp.bp.105.008714.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Haynes R: Inequalities in health and health service use: evidence from the General Household Survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991, 33 (4): 361-368. 10.1016/0277-9536(91)90317-6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Britton M, Fox AJ, Godblatt P, Jones DR, Rosato M: The influence of socio-economic and environmental factors on geographic variation in mortality. Mortality and Geography. Edited by: Britton M. 1990, London: HMSO, 57-58.Google Scholar
  14. Doll R: Urban rural factors in the aetiology of cancer. Int J Cancer. 1991, 47: 803-810. 10.1002/ijc.2910470602.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Campbell NC, Elliott AM, Sharp L, Ritchie LD, Cassidy J, Little J: Impact of deprivation and rural residence on treatment of colorectal and lung cancer. Br J Cancer. 2002, 87 (6): 585-590.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  16. Campbell NC, Elliott AM, Sharp L, Ritchie LD, Cassidy J, Little J: Rural and urban differences in stage at diagnosis of colorectal and lung cancers. Br J Cancer. 2001, 84 (7): 910-914. 10.1054/bjoc.2000.1708.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  17. Weiler PGFAU, Lubben JEFAU, Chi I: Hypertension in elderly people in a preventive health program. Am J Prev Med. 1989, 5 (4): 216-224.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Pocock SJ, Cook DG, Shaper AG, Phillips AN, Walker M: Social class differences in ischaemic heart disease in British men. Lancet. 1987, 330 (8552): 197-201. 10.1016/S0140-6736(87)90774-4.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Woodward M, Shewry MC, Smith Cairns, Tunstall-Pedoe H: Social status and coronary heart disease: results from the Scottish heart health study. Prev Med. 1992, 21 (1): 136-148. 10.1016/0091-7435(92)90013-8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaplan GA, Keil JE: Socioeconomic factors and cardiovascular disease: a review of the literature. Circulation. 1993, 88 (4): 1973-1998.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Bentham G: Mortality rates in the more rural areas of England and Wales. Area. 1984, 16: 219-226.Google Scholar
  22. Scottish Executive: Social Focus on Urban Rural Scotland. 2003, Edinburgh (http://www.scotland.gov.uk/stats/bulletins/00257.pdf), A Scottish Executive National Statistics PublicationGoogle Scholar
  23. Paykel ESFAU, Abbott RF, Jenkins RF, Brugha TSFAU, Meltzer H: Urban-rural mental health differences in great Britain: findings from the national morbidity survey. Psychol Med. 2000, 30 (2): 269-280. 10.1017/S003329179900183X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Mainous A, Kohrs F: A comparison of health status between rural and urban adults. J Community Health. 1995, 20 (5): 423-431. 10.1007/BF02260438.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Canadian Institute for Health Information: How Healthy Are Rural Canadians? An Assessment of Their Health Status and Health Determinants. 2006Google Scholar
  26. Ricketts TC: Rural Health in the United States. 1999, Oxford University Press Inc.Google Scholar
  27. Smith KB, Humphreys JS, Wilson MG: Addressing the health disadvantage of rural populations: how does epidemiological evidence inform rural health policies and research?. Aust J Rural Health. 2008, 16 (2): 56-66. 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2008.00953.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Scottish Executive-Health Department: Fair Shares for All: Final Report. The Stationary Office. 2000Google Scholar
  29. Kerr D: Building a Health Service Fit for the Future. 2005, Scottish Executive, EdinburghGoogle Scholar
  30. Adams G, Gulliford M, Ukoumunne O, Chinn S, Campbell M: Geographical and organizational variation in the structure of primary care services: implications for study design. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2003, 8 (2): 87-93. 10.1258/135581903321466058.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Schers HF, Webster SFAU, van den Hoogen H, van den Hoogen HF, Avery AF, Grol RF, van den BW: Continuity of care in general practice: a survey of patients' views. Br J Gen Pract. 2002, 52 (479): 459-462.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  32. Parchman ML, Pugh JA, Noel PH, Larme AC: Continuity of Care, Self-Management Behaviors, and Glucose Control in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes. [Article]. Medical Care. 2002, 40 (2): 137-144. 10.1097/00005650-200202000-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Wensing M, Vedsted P, Kersnik J, Peersman W, Klingenberg A, Hearnshaw H, et al: Patient satisfaction with availability of general practice: an international comparison. Int J Qual Health Care. 2002, 14 (2): 111-118.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Wolinsky FD, Marder WD: Spending time with patients. The impact of organizational structure on medical practice. Med Care. 1982, 20 (10): 1051-1059. 10.1097/00005650-198210000-00008.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Hippisley-Cox J, Allen J, Pringle M, Ebdon D, McPhearson M, Churchill D, et al: Association between teenage pregnancy rates and the age and sex of general practitioners: cross sectional survey in Trent 1994-7. BMJ. 2000, 320 (7238): 842-845. 10.1136/bmj.320.7238.842.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  36. Deveugele M, Derese A, van den Brink-Muinen A, Bensing J, De Maeseneer J: Consultation length in general practice: cross sectional study in six European countries. BMJ. 2002, 325 (7362): 472-10.1136/bmj.325.7362.472.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  37. Baker RF, Streatfield J: What type of general practice do patients prefer? Exploration of practice characteristics influencing patient satisfaction. Br J Gen Pract. 1995, 45 (401): 654-659.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  38. Gray R, Carter Y, Hull S, Sheldon M, Ball C: Characteristics of general practices involved in undergraduate medical teaching. Br J Gen Pract. 2001, 51 (466): 371-374.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  39. Campbell JL: The reported availability of general practitioners and the influence of practice list size. Br J Gen Pract. 1996, 46 (409): 465-468.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  40. Baker DF, Klein R: Explaining outputs of primary health care: population and practice factors. BMJ. 1991, 303 (6796): 225-229. 10.1136/bmj.303.6796.225.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  41. Reid FDA, Cook DG, Majeed A: Explaining variation in hospital admission rates between general practices: cross sectional study. BMJ. 1999, 319 (7202): 98-10.1136/bmj.319.7202.98.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Bentham G, Haynes R: Health, personal mobility and the use of health services in rural Norfolk. J Rural Stud. 1985, 1 (3): 231-239. 10.1016/0743-0167(85)90106-8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  43. Hippisley-Cox J, Pringle M, Coupland C, Hammersley V, Wilson A: Do single handed practices offer poorer care? Cross sectional survey of processes and outcomes. BMJ. 2001, 323 (7308): 320-10.1136/bmj.323.7308.320.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  44. Watson M, Gunnell D, Peters T, Brookes S, Sharp D: Guidelines and educational outreach visits from community pharmacists to improve prescribing in general practice: a randomised controlled trial. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2001, 6 (4): 207-213. 10.1258/1355819011927503.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Campbell SM, Hann M, Hacker J, Burns C, Oliver D, Thapar A, et al: Identifying predictors of high quality care in English general practice: observational study. BMJ. 2001, 323 (7316): 784-10.1136/bmj.323.7316.784.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  46. Baker R: Characteristics of practices, general practitioners and patients related to levels of patients' satisfaction with consultations. Br J Gen Pract. 1996, 46 (411): 601-605.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  47. Newhouse JP, Friedlander LJ: The relationship between medical resources and measures of health: some additional evidence. J Hum Resour. 1980, 15 (2): 200-218. 10.2307/145331.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. Gosden T, Sibbald B, Williams J, Petchey R, Leese B: Paying doctors by salary: a controlled study of general practitioner behaviour in England. Health Policy. 2003, 64 (3): 415-423. 10.1016/S0168-8510(02)00204-X.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Bryson L, Warner-Smith P: Choice of GP: who do young rural women prefer?. Aust J Rural Health. 1998, 6 (3): 144-149. 10.1111/j.1440-1584.1998.tb00301.x.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Robertson R, Campbell NC, Smith S, Donnan P, Sullivan F, Duffy R, et al: Factors influencing time from presentation to treatment of colorectal and breast cancer in urban and rural areas. Br J Cancer. 2004, 90: 1479-1485. 10.1038/sj.bjc.6601753.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  51. Robertson AG, Boyle P, Yosef HM, Gillis GR, Flatman GE: Cancer of larynx in west of Scotland. A review of results and a consideration of new therapeutic approaches. Am J Clin Oncol. 1982, 5 (5): 527-533.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Gulliford M, Jack R, Adams G, Ukoumunne O: Availability and structure of primary medical care services and population health and health care indicators in England. BMC Health Serv Res. 2004, 4 (1): 12-10.1186/1472-6963-4-12.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  53. Last J: A dictionary of epidemiolog. 1995, New York: Oxford University PressGoogle Scholar
  54. Shaw A, Mcmunn A, Field A: The Scottish Health Survey 1998. A survey carried out on behalf of The Scottish Executive Department of Health. 2000, 1: [http://www.show.scot.nhs.uk/scottishhealthsurvey/sh8-00.html]Google Scholar
  55. The 1998 survey - Volume 1 - A survey carried out on behalf of the Scottish Executive Department of Health. Edited by: Shaw A, Mcmunn A, Field J. 2000, Edinburgh: The Stationery Office. Joint Health Surveys Unit, At the National Centre for Social Research and Department of Epidemiology & Public Health, UCL
  56. O'Reilly G, O' Reilly D, Rosato M, Connolly S: Urban and rural variations in morbidity and mortality in Northern Ireland. BMC Publ Health. 2007, 7 (1): 123-10.1186/1471-2458-7-123.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Scottish Executive: Scottish Executive Urban Rural Classification - 2003-2004. 2004Google Scholar
  58. Hope S, Martin C, Dudleston A: Scotland's People: Results from the 2001 Scottish Household Survey. Technical Report. 2002, Edinburgh, A Scottish Executive national statistics publication, 7: web site http://www.scotland.gov.uk/library5/finance/spv7.pdf Google Scholar
  59. Scottish Executive Environment and Rural Development Department: Living in Scotland: An urban-rural analysis of the Scottish Household Survey. 2003, Edinburgh, Social Research Branch with assistance from the Scottish Agricultural CollegeGoogle Scholar
  60. The Department of Health: Investing in General Practice: The New General Medical Services Contract. The Department of Health. 2003Google Scholar
  61. Wooldridge J: Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. 2002, The Massachusetts Institute of Technology PressGoogle Scholar
  62. Kirkwood BR, Sterne AC: Medical Statistics. 2003, Blackwell Publishing Company, USA, SecondGoogle Scholar
  63. Intercooled Stata 8.2 for Windows. College Station, Texas. 2003
  64. Shi LF, Starfield BF, Kennedy BF, Kawachi I: Income inequality, primary care, and health indicators. J Fam Pract. 1999, 48 (4): 275-284.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. Shi LF, Starfield B: The effect of primary care physician supply and income inequality on mortality among blacks and whites in US metropolitan areas. Am J Public Health. 2001, 91 (8): 1246-50. 10.2105/AJPH.91.8.1246. 2001;(8):1246-1250View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  66. The Contribution of Primary Care to Health Outcomes within OECD Countries, 1970-1998. 2003
  67. Shi L, Macinko J, Starfield B, Politzer R, Wulu J, Xu J: Primary care, social inequalities and all-cause, heart disease and cancer mortality in US counties: a comparison between urban and non-urban areas. Public Health. 2005, 119 (8): 699-710. 10.1016/j.puhe.2004.12.007.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Woodward M: Epidemiology: Study design and data analysis. 1999, USA: Chapman & Hall/CRCGoogle Scholar
  69. Chamberlayne R, Green B, Barer ML, Hertzman C, Lawrence WJ, Sheps SB: Creating a population-based linked health database: a new resource for health services research. Can J Public Health. 1998, 89 (4): 270-273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Newcombe H, Fair M, Lalonde P: The use of names for linking personal records. J Am Stat Assoc. 1992, 87: 1193-1204. 10.2307/2290660.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  71. SØRensen HT, Sabroe S, Olsen J: A Framework for Evaluation of Secondary Data Sources for Epidemiological Research. Int J Epidemiol. 1996, 25 (2): 435-442. 10.1093/ije/25.2.435.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. Perenboom RJ, Lako CJ, Schouten EG: Health status and medical consumption of rural and urban elderly. Gerodontology. 1988, 2: 124-128.Google Scholar
  73. Pre-publication history

    1. The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6963/12/43/prepub

Copyright

© Teckle et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2012

This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Advertisement