Limits...
Urban-rural differences in daily time-activity patterns, occupational activity and housing characteristics.

Matz CJ, Stieb DM, Brion O - Environ Health (2015)

Bottom Line: There is evidence that rural residents experience a health disadvantage compared to urban residents, associated with a greater prevalence of health risk factors and socioeconomic differences.Despite these differences, no differences in self-reported health status were observed between urban and rural residents.We identified a number of differences between urban and rural residents, which provide evidence pertinent to the urban-rural health disparity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Air Health Effects Assessment Division, Health Canada, 269 Laurier Ave W, PL 4903C, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9, Canada. carlyn.matz@hc-sc.gc.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: There is evidence that rural residents experience a health disadvantage compared to urban residents, associated with a greater prevalence of health risk factors and socioeconomic differences. We examined differences between urban and rural Canadians using data from the Canadian Human Activity Pattern Survey (CHAPS) 2.

Methods: Data were collected from 1460 respondents in two rural areas (Haldimand-Norfolk, Ontario and Annapolis Valley-Kings County, Nova Scotia) and 3551 respondents in five urban areas (Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax) using a 24-h recall diary and supplementary questionnaires administered using computer-assisted telephone interviews. We evaluated differences in time-activity patterns, occupational activity, and housing characteristics between rural and urban populations using multivariable linear and logistic regression models adjusted for design as well as demographic and socioeconomic covariates. Taylor linearization method and design-adjusted Wald tests were used to test statistical significance.

Results: After adjustment for demographic and socioeconomic covariates, rural children, adults and seniors spent on average 0.7 (p < 0.05), 1.2 (p < 0.001), and 0.9 (p < 0.001) more hours outdoors per day respectively than urban counterparts. 23.1 % (95 % CI: 19.0-27.2 %) of urban and 37.8 % (95 % CI: 31.2-44.4 %) of rural employed populations reported working outdoors and the distributions of job skill level and industry differed significantly (p < 0.001) between urban and rural residents. In particular, 11.4 % of rural residents vs. 4.9 % of urban residents were employed in unskilled jobs, and 11.5 % of rural residents vs. <0.5 % of urban residents were employ in primary industry. Rural residents were also more likely than urban residents to report spending time near gas or diesel powered equipment other than vehicles (16.9 % vs. 5.2 %, p < 0.001), more likely to report wood as a heating fuel (9.8 % vs. <0.1 %; p < 0.001 for difference in distribution of heating fuels), less likely to have an air conditioner (43.0 % vs. 57.2 %, p < 0.001), and more likely to smoke (29.1 % vs. 19.0 %, p < 0.001). Private wells were the main water source in rural areas (68.6 %) in contrast to public water systems (97.6 %) in urban areas (p < 0.001). Despite these differences, no differences in self-reported health status were observed between urban and rural residents.

Conclusions: We identified a number of differences between urban and rural residents, which provide evidence pertinent to the urban-rural health disparity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Occupational industry, based on NAICS classification, for urban and rural populations (≥18 yrs). Bars represent population weighted estimates ± 95 % CI. Difference between urban and rural is significant (***p < 0.001). aHigh sampling variability, interpret with caution. # Data for Urban category is suppressed due to high sampling variability
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644325&req=5

Fig3: Occupational industry, based on NAICS classification, for urban and rural populations (≥18 yrs). Bars represent population weighted estimates ± 95 % CI. Difference between urban and rural is significant (***p < 0.001). aHigh sampling variability, interpret with caution. # Data for Urban category is suppressed due to high sampling variability

Mentions: NAICS industrial classification was also compared for employed respondents aged ≥18 yrs (Fig. 3). The three most common industries for urban employment were: health care and social assistance (13.8 %); professional, scientific, and technical services (12.4 %); and, educational services (11.7 %). Employment in health care and social assistance (15.8 %) and educational services (11.4 %) were also prevalent in the rural population. Employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting was the second most prevalent industrial group (11.5 %) in the rural population, while only a small portion (4.4 %) of the rural population was employed in professional, scientific, and technical services. Urban–rural differences in the distribution of employment industry were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and this difference was maintained with adjustment for each of education, gender, and SES alone, but not in combination (p = 0.985).Fig. 3


Urban-rural differences in daily time-activity patterns, occupational activity and housing characteristics.

Matz CJ, Stieb DM, Brion O - Environ Health (2015)

Occupational industry, based on NAICS classification, for urban and rural populations (≥18 yrs). Bars represent population weighted estimates ± 95 % CI. Difference between urban and rural is significant (***p < 0.001). aHigh sampling variability, interpret with caution. # Data for Urban category is suppressed due to high sampling variability
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4644325&req=5

Fig3: Occupational industry, based on NAICS classification, for urban and rural populations (≥18 yrs). Bars represent population weighted estimates ± 95 % CI. Difference between urban and rural is significant (***p < 0.001). aHigh sampling variability, interpret with caution. # Data for Urban category is suppressed due to high sampling variability
Mentions: NAICS industrial classification was also compared for employed respondents aged ≥18 yrs (Fig. 3). The three most common industries for urban employment were: health care and social assistance (13.8 %); professional, scientific, and technical services (12.4 %); and, educational services (11.7 %). Employment in health care and social assistance (15.8 %) and educational services (11.4 %) were also prevalent in the rural population. Employment in agriculture, forestry, fishing and hunting was the second most prevalent industrial group (11.5 %) in the rural population, while only a small portion (4.4 %) of the rural population was employed in professional, scientific, and technical services. Urban–rural differences in the distribution of employment industry were statistically significant (p < 0.001) and this difference was maintained with adjustment for each of education, gender, and SES alone, but not in combination (p = 0.985).Fig. 3

Bottom Line: There is evidence that rural residents experience a health disadvantage compared to urban residents, associated with a greater prevalence of health risk factors and socioeconomic differences.Despite these differences, no differences in self-reported health status were observed between urban and rural residents.We identified a number of differences between urban and rural residents, which provide evidence pertinent to the urban-rural health disparity.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Air Health Effects Assessment Division, Health Canada, 269 Laurier Ave W, PL 4903C, Ottawa, ON, K1A 0K9, Canada. carlyn.matz@hc-sc.gc.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: There is evidence that rural residents experience a health disadvantage compared to urban residents, associated with a greater prevalence of health risk factors and socioeconomic differences. We examined differences between urban and rural Canadians using data from the Canadian Human Activity Pattern Survey (CHAPS) 2.

Methods: Data were collected from 1460 respondents in two rural areas (Haldimand-Norfolk, Ontario and Annapolis Valley-Kings County, Nova Scotia) and 3551 respondents in five urban areas (Vancouver, Edmonton, Toronto, Montreal, and Halifax) using a 24-h recall diary and supplementary questionnaires administered using computer-assisted telephone interviews. We evaluated differences in time-activity patterns, occupational activity, and housing characteristics between rural and urban populations using multivariable linear and logistic regression models adjusted for design as well as demographic and socioeconomic covariates. Taylor linearization method and design-adjusted Wald tests were used to test statistical significance.

Results: After adjustment for demographic and socioeconomic covariates, rural children, adults and seniors spent on average 0.7 (p < 0.05), 1.2 (p < 0.001), and 0.9 (p < 0.001) more hours outdoors per day respectively than urban counterparts. 23.1 % (95 % CI: 19.0-27.2 %) of urban and 37.8 % (95 % CI: 31.2-44.4 %) of rural employed populations reported working outdoors and the distributions of job skill level and industry differed significantly (p < 0.001) between urban and rural residents. In particular, 11.4 % of rural residents vs. 4.9 % of urban residents were employed in unskilled jobs, and 11.5 % of rural residents vs. <0.5 % of urban residents were employ in primary industry. Rural residents were also more likely than urban residents to report spending time near gas or diesel powered equipment other than vehicles (16.9 % vs. 5.2 %, p < 0.001), more likely to report wood as a heating fuel (9.8 % vs. <0.1 %; p < 0.001 for difference in distribution of heating fuels), less likely to have an air conditioner (43.0 % vs. 57.2 %, p < 0.001), and more likely to smoke (29.1 % vs. 19.0 %, p < 0.001). Private wells were the main water source in rural areas (68.6 %) in contrast to public water systems (97.6 %) in urban areas (p < 0.001). Despite these differences, no differences in self-reported health status were observed between urban and rural residents.

Conclusions: We identified a number of differences between urban and rural residents, which provide evidence pertinent to the urban-rural health disparity.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus