Your privacy, your choice

We use essential cookies to make sure the site can function. We also use optional cookies for advertising, personalisation of content, usage analysis, and social media.

By accepting optional cookies, you consent to the processing of your personal data - including transfers to third parties. Some third parties are outside of the European Economic Area, with varying standards of data protection.

See our privacy policy for more information on the use of your personal data.

for further information and to change your choices.

Skip to main content

Table 1 Concept screening criteria

From: Rural–urban differences in health service utilization in upper-middle and high-income countries: a scoping review

Concept

Definition

Utilization:

Consumption of health services had to occur – i.e., utilization—rather than merely the presence of services. For example, studies focusing on “beds per capita” or “physicians by urban–rural catchments” were excluded.

Publicly funded health services:

The priority was for utilized services to be publicly financed. This meant the exclusion of studies that exclusively assessed utilization of private funded services—either those funded Out of Pocket, or via private insurance. An exception to this was made for mixed “concept” studies (largely in the American context) where public and privately funded insurance consumption were combined in the same study. We accepted these studies because of the presence of the public funding element.

Rural–urban comparison

Studies were required to have a rural–urban comparison in the reported results. Parameters were not put around definitions of “rurality”. Rather, the intent of the review was to scope international literature pertaining to broad rural–urban variations – even if definitions of rurality varied.