The report also compares the 20 NCHS schemes. The report 2013 NCHS Urban–Rural Classification Scheme for Counties details development of the 2013 NCHS scheme and provides some examples o the scheme’s application to mortality data and to health measures from the National Health Interview Survey. For these measures, residents of the inner cities and suburbs of large metropolitan areas must be differentiated to obtain an accurate characterization of health disparities across the full urban-rural spectrum. This is an important feature of the NCHS urban-rural scheme because for a number of health measures, residents of large fringe metro areas fare substantially better than residents of other urbanization levels. However, while the classification rules used to assign counties to the six urban-rural categories are the same for the 20 NCHS schemes, they differ somewhat from those used for the 1990 census-based scheme.Ī key feature of the NCHS urban-rural scheme, which makes it particularly well-suited for health analyses, is that it separates counties within large metropolitan areas (1 million or more population) into two categories: large “central” metro (akin to inner cities) and large “fringe” metro (akin to suburbs). The basic framework of the three schemes is the same. population) can support more levels for health analyses than the relatively small nonmetropolitan population. metropolitan population (in 2010, about 85% of the U.S. The NCHS scheme has more metropolitan levels (four) than nonmetropolitan levels (two) because the large U.S. The levels of the NCHS scheme were chosen for their utility in studying health differences across the urban-rural continuum.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |