Self-reported vs RUCA rural-urban classification among North Carolina pharmacists

Abstract

Background: The various ways in which rurality is defined can have large-scale implications on the provision of healthcare services.
 Objective: The purpose of this study was to identify the relationship between self-perceived urban-rural distinction and the United States (US) Census tract-based Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) scheme that defines rurality among pharmacists.
 Methods: This was a secondary analysis of data collected through a web-based survey of licensed pharmacists in North Carolina. Respondents self-reported their workplace settings, zip codes, and the pharmacy services offered in their place of work. Zip codes were replaced with the corresponding RUCA codes. The relationship between self-reported classification and RUCA codes was analyzed and a chi square test was performed to measure statistical significance.
 Results: Of the original survey, 584 participants reported their workplace zip code and 579 reported their workplace setting (urban, rural). A significant difference was found between pharmacists who self-reported working in rural areas and the RUCA classifications – 94 (56.6%) of the 166 participants who reported working in “rural” areas were considered “urban” according to RUCA.
 Conclusions: A significant discordance between pharmacists’ self-reported classification and the RUCA codes was found, with more respondents self-reporting their workplace area as “rural” as compared to the RUCA classification. Decision-makers examining the pharmacy workforce and pharmacy services should be aware of this discordance and its implications for resource allocation. We recommend the use of standardized metrics, when possible.

Addressing rural and non-rural substance use disorder stigma: Evidence from a national randomized controlled trial

“…Further, we only examine the effect of brief interventions and their short-term effects on SUD stigma. Additionally, we rely on self-reported measures of rurality which can differ from other objective measures of rurality ( Castle & Tak, 2021 ). Finally, the goal of our study was to examine social stigma towards SUD and RH in general, as such we did not disentangle stigma towards different types of SUDs or stigma towards individuals with SUD by varying race and/or gender.…”

Association of Rural Hospital for-Profit Status With Higher Publicly Reported Prices for the Components of Inpatient Hematuria Evaluation Among Commercially Insured Patients

“…Hospitals were stratified as metropolitan or rural based on the University of Washington Rural Health Research Center “Categorization C” which combines micropolitan, small and large rural township, and isolated rural town into a single rural categorization and has been used in previous literature. 11,12 Hospitals were excluded if they were non–short-term acute care facilities (n = 1,411), not located in a U.S. state (n = 57), or could not be matched with RUCA codes (n = 45). Using HCRIS, we abstracted each hospital’s total employee full-time equivalents, number of beds, teaching status, ownership model (not-for-profit, for-profit, government), and state.…”

Telehealth use among pediatric Alabama Medicaid enrollees, March-December 2020: Variations by race/ethnicity & place of residence

“…[ 14 , 15 ] Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) designation, a standardized classification system to identify rural and urban areas, was divided into four categories: urban, large rural, small rural, and isolated areas. [ 16 ] The latest version of RUCA codes, revised on July 2019, was obtained from the United States Department of Agriculture. [ 17 ] To measure the socio-economic status of the area where the enrollee resided, quartiles of zip-code level poverty were constructed (Pov_Q1 through Pov_Q4), following precedence in the literature.…”