324 Defining “Rural”: Implications for Tobacco Control

Thursday, August 16, 2012
Exhibit Hall (Kansas City Convention Center)
Sarah C. Shelton, MPH , Center for Tobacco Policy Research, Washington University in St. Louis, Saint Louis, MO
Amy A. Sorg, MPH , Center for Tobacco Policy Research, Washington University in St. Louis
Matthew Kuhlenbeck, MHA , Missouri Foundation for Health

Learning Objectives

At the conclusion of this presentation attendees will be able to:

  1. describe commonly used definitions of rural and how they can influence results in tobacco control evaluation and research.

Audience:

The primary audience is individuals working in tobacco surveillance, evaluation or research. Individuals who fund, plan, or implement tobacco control programs and policies will also benefit.

Key Points:

Prior research has shown that numerous challenges to tobacco control efforts exist in rural settings. However, there is no universal definition for the term “rural”. Researchers should carefully consider the advantages and disadvantages of the various classification options, as the definition applied can influence results. The presenters will describe their own experience choosing between the numerous rural definitions and share results from analysis of a statewide tobacco surveillance survey utilizing two different rural classification schemes.

Educational Experience:

The audience will learn about options for classifying geographic areas through a discussion of commonly used rural definitions. The presenters will also describe advantages and disadvantages of these options and how they can influence results in tobacco control evaluation and research.

Benefits:

Rural residents are often a focus of tobacco control programs, policies and research. Given this priority, the tobacco control community should fully understand the varying definitions of rural. They must also consider how the application of different definitions may influence evaluation and research results.