4.3 Article

Rural-urban disparities in health-related quality of life within disease categories of veterans

Journal

JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH
Volume 22, Issue 3, Pages 204-211

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1748-0361.2006.00033.x

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Context: Compared to their urban counterparts, rural veterans have been found to have lower health-related quality of life. Purpose: To determine whether these disparities persist when examining disease categories of rural and urban veterans. Methods: We obtained survey data on 748,216 veterans who were current or anticipated Veterans Health Administration patients. Using International Classification of Diseases (ICD)-9CM codes, we determined whether these veterans had diagnoses that fell into any of 30 physical health disease categories, and we used ZIP codes to determine whether veterans lived in rural or urban settings. We compared rural to urban prevalence of disease categories as well as urban to rural health-related quality-of-life physical health component summary scores (PCS) and mental health component summary scores (MCS) for each disease category. Findings: Physical diagnoses were significantly more prevalent in the rural veteran population for most disease categories examined. For every disease category examined, PCS were significantly lower for veterans who lived in rural, compared to urban, settings (P < .001 for all); rural veterans also experienced lower MCS for all disease categories although differences were modest. Differences persisted after controlling for sociodemographic factors. Conclusions: Compared to the urban veteran population, within disease categories, the rural veteran population experiences higher disease prevalence and lower physical and mental quality-of-life scores. Policymakers should anticipate greater health care demands from the rural veteran population and work to meet that demand.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available