Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
A meta-analysis of human health differences in urban and rural environments
KTH, School of Architecture and the Built Environment (ABE), Urban Planning and Environment, Urban and Regional Studies.ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7171-994x
2019 (English)In: Letters in spatial and resource sciences, ISSN 1864-4031, E-ISSN 1864-404X, Vol. 12, no 3, p. 167-186Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Abstract [en]

Human health outcomes are known to be affected not only by individual physical and socio-economic status, but also by external environmental conditions, as well as by place-based economic and geographical circumstances. In recent decades, a large number of studies have addressed the background of differences in health outcomes between rural and urban areas. Are rural ways of living healthier than urban ways of living? This has led to a wealth of studies on human health and the geographical differences of living and working. The effects of regional or urban characteristics on health outcomes are often inconsistent among different studies/countries. An important factor that seems to be important is the ambiguous definition of both health and urbanism, as well as the presence of intra-regional heterogeneity (e.g. inner-city areas). In the present study, we conduct a systematic review of the existing literature on space and health indicators, based on a broad, but concise overview of the underlying mechanisms involved. Next, we provide a quantitative research synthesis with the help of a meta-analysis of published studies on self-rated/self-reported physical health conditions in rural and urban areas. The results from our meta-analytical regression analysis indicate that there is not a clearly convincing difference between rural and urban areas; however, people in rural areas appear to rate themselves slightly healthier than their urban counterparts. In addition, we observe that self-rated/reported fair/poor health is also highly dependent on a number of personal and socio-economic factors; from a personal perspective, education, addiction, physical activity, and duration of residence appear to play a significant role, while, from a socio-economic perspective, in particular, community predictor measures (e.g. gross domestic product, population, unemployment rate) appear to exert a substantial influence.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Springer Verlag , 2019. Vol. 12, no 3, p. 167-186
Keywords [en]
Meta-analysis, Rural, Self rated health, Urban
National Category
Social and Economic Geography Public Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-263262DOI: 10.1007/s12076-019-00235-zScopus ID: 2-s2.0-85070761042OAI: oai:DiVA.org:kth-263262DiVA, id: diva2:1368150
Note

QC 20191106. QC 20200109

Available from: 2019-11-06 Created: 2019-11-06 Last updated: 2020-01-29Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

No full text in DiVA

Other links

Publisher's full textScopus

Authority records BETA

Kourtit, Karima

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Kourtit, Karima
By organisation
Urban and Regional Studies
In the same journal
Letters in spatial and resource sciences
Social and Economic GeographyPublic Health, Global Health, Social Medicine and Epidemiology

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar

doi
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
urn-nbn
Total: 34 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf