Journal of Community Health

, Volume 20, Issue 5, pp 423–431 | Cite as

A comparison of health status between rural and urban adults

  • Arch G. MainousIII
  • Francis P. Kohrs


The objective of the study was to examine and compare health status between rural and urban adults. The data are from a 1993 statewide probability-based telephone survey of adult Kentuckians (n=662). Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) residents (n=264) and nonMSA residents (n=398) were compared using the Medical Outcomes Study, Short Form Health Survey (SF-20). Self-perceived urban (n=406) and rural (n=256) residents were also compared. Additional analyses were stratified by the age categories of 18–44, 45–64, and ≥65 years of age. Few differences in health status existed between rural and urban adults. However, rural elders (≥65 years) had significantly poorer health status than urban elders. After controlling for demographic variables in multiple regressions, rural elders had significantly poorer functioning (all p<.05) than urban elders as measured by the SF-20 subscales of a) physical functioning, b) role functioning, c) social functioning, d) general mental health, and e) general health perceptions. No differences between rural and urban residents were noted for the pain subscale. Although the health status of rural and urban adults is generally similar, the rural elderly have significantly worse health status than their urban counterparts.


Health Status Urban Resident Health Perception Medical Outcome Study Form Health 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Office of Program Development.Study of Models to Meet Rural Health Care Needs. Rockville, MD: Health Resources and Service Administration, 1992. Publication No. HRS 240-89-0037.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kletke PR, Marder WD, Willke RJ. A projection of the primary care physician population in metropolitan and nonmetropolitan areas.Primary Care Research: Theory and Methods. AHCPR conference proceedings, Washington DC: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1991:261–269.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Van Nostrand JF, ed. Common beliefs about the rural elderly: what do national data tell us?Vital Health Stat 3; 1993.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feldstein PJ.Health Care Economics. Third Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1988:76–109.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ware JE, Manning WG, Duan N, Wells KB, Newhouse JP. Health status and the use of outpatient mental health services.Am Psychol. 1984;39:1090–1100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bergner L, Hallstrom AP, Bergner M, Eisenberg MS, Cobb LA. Health status of survivors of cardiac arrest and of myocardial infarction controls.Am J Public Health. 1985;75:1321–1323.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Norton CH, McManus MA. Background tables on demographic characteristics, health status, and health services utilization.Health Serv Res. 1989;23:725–755.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dwyer JW, Barton AJ, Vogel WB. Area of residence and risk of institutionalization.J. Gerontol. 1994;49:S75-S84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gillanders WR, Buss TF. Access to medical care among the elderly in rural northeastern Ohio.J Fam Pract. 1993;37:349–355.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Data Watch. Study: rural elders living alone at greater risk for health problems.Hosp Health Netw. 1993 Sep 20:67:58.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Waksberg J. Sampling methods for random digit dialing.J Am Stat Assoc. 1978;73:40–6.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Sudman S. Applied sampling. In: Rossi PH, Wright JD, Anderson AB, eds.Handbook of Survey Research. New York: Academic Press; 1983:145–94.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rosenblatt RA. Summary and reactions: rural health manpower research.Primary Care Research: Theory and Methods. AHCPR conference proceedings, Washington DC: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1991:271–275.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Stewart AL, Hays RD, Ware JE. The MOS short form general health survey: reliability and validity in a patient population.Med Care. 1988;26:724–735.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stewart AL, Greenfield S, Hays RD, et al. Functional status and well-being of patients with chronic conditions: results from the Medical Outcomes Study.JAMA. 1989;262:907–913.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ware JE. How to score the SF-20.Memorandum released to users of the Medical Outcomes Study 20-Item Short-Form Health Survey. Boston, MA: New England Medical Center, 1990.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Mangione CM, Marcantonio ER, Goldman L, et al. Influence of age on measurement of health status in patients undergoing elective surgery.J Am Geriatr Soc. 1993;41:377–383.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kristal AR, White E, Davis JR, et al. Effects of enhanced calling efforts on response rates, estimates of health behavior, and costs in a telephone health survey using random-digit dialing.Public Health Rep. 1993;108:372–379.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Marcus AC, Crane LA. Telephone surveys in public health research.Med Care. 1986;24:97–112.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Corey CR, Freeman HE. Use of telephone interviewing in health care research.Health Serv Res. 1990;25:129–144.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Human Sciences Press, Inc 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • Arch G. MainousIII
    • 1
  • Francis P. Kohrs
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Family Practice, Kentucky ClinicUniversity of KentuckyLexington

Personalised recommendations