Rural-Urban Cardiovascular Health Disparities: A Literature Review
This literature review examines the factors driving health disparities between rural and urban populations, with a particular focus on cardiovascular disease and related screening behaviors. Drawing on studies from the United States, Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Australia, and Scotland, the review identifies recurring themes including lower socioeconomic status, lifestyle risk factors, reduced physician density, transportation barriers, and gaps in preventative care. The paper also considers cultural attitudes toward health care among rural residents and highlights an underexplored gap in the literature: the role of specialist access in cardiovascular mortality. The review concludes that addressing rural cardiovascular outcomes requires a multifaceted approach targeting both lifestyle determinants and structural barriers to care.
- Introduction: The Rural-Urban Health Divide: Rural-urban screening gaps and cardiovascular disparities introduced
- Lifestyle and Socioeconomic Factors in Cardiovascular Disease: Lower income and lifestyle choices drive rural cardiovascular risk
- Access to Care: Physicians, Specialists, and Transportation: Physician density, referrals, and transportation as access barriers
- Preventative Care Quality in Rural Communities: Rural primary care lacks proactive cardiovascular prevention
- Cultural Attitudes and Structural Barriers: Rural conservatism and health avoidance compound structural gaps
- Gaps in the Literature and Future Directions: Specialist access and mortality links remain understudied
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The review synthesizes evidence from multiple countries (US, Iceland, Denmark, Canada, Australia, Scotland), demonstrating that the rural-urban health gap is a global phenomenon rather than a uniquely American problem.
- The paper balances confirmatory evidence with a contrasting study (Choo et al., Scotland), showing academic fairness and awareness of contextual variability.
- The author explicitly identifies gaps in the existing literature — particularly regarding specialist access and its role in cardiovascular mortality — demonstrating higher-order critical thinking beyond simple summary.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a thematic synthesis approach: rather than summarizing each source in isolation, it groups findings by recurring themes (socioeconomic status, lifestyle, access barriers, preventative care quality) and draws cross-study conclusions. This allows the review to build a coherent argument about the multi-causal nature of rural health disparities.
Structure breakdown
The review opens with a study on colorectal cancer screening to illustrate rural-urban disparities broadly, then narrows to cardiovascular disease through studies from multiple countries. It moves from causal factors (lifestyle, income) to structural barriers (transportation, physician density, preventative care gaps), incorporates a counterpoint study, and closes by identifying unresolved questions about specialist access and rural mortality rates.
Introduction: The Rural-Urban Health Divide
Hughes, Watanabe-Galloway, Schnell, and Soliman (2015) studied the differences in colorectal cancer screening rates between rural and urban populations in Nebraska. Their investigation into the reasons behind this gap revealed several noteworthy findings, some of which were unexpected. The authors found that rural residents were more likely to believe that colorectal cancer cannot be prevented, and therefore did not feel that screening was worthwhile. A higher percentage of rural residents also identified cost as a barrier, while perceived embarrassment and perceived unpleasantness were indicators found more frequently among rural residents. The study suggests that cultural factors play a meaningful role in the rural-urban divide.
However, the study also found that people who had a personal doctor were more likely to receive screenings. This indicates that physician density can play a significant role — people without a regular doctor are less likely to receive advice to pursue screenings or to obtain referrals. These factors can contribute to lower screening rates and, consequently, higher rates of morbidity among rural populations.
An Icelandic study (Haraldsdottir, Gudmundsson, Thorgeirsson, Lund, & Valdimarsdottir, 2017) regarding cardiovascular disease arrived at similar conclusions. The authors found that rural areas had a higher prevalence of preventable risk factors. They also found that hospital discharges were more frequent in rural areas, which may have contributed to higher mortality rates. The underlying causes of higher discharge rates were not examined in that study, but the implication is that shorter hospital stays may be more common among rural residents — particularly when the hospital is not located in their community — potentially depriving them of the full range of diagnostic testing they would have received with a longer stay.
Lifestyle and Socioeconomic Factors in Cardiovascular Disease
Amponsah, Tabi, and Gibbison (2015) examined cardiovascular disease in rural Georgia. As in the Icelandic study, they found that lifestyle factors contributed to the gap in health outcomes. Rural residents in their study generally had lower socioeconomic status, and lower socioeconomic status is associated with higher rates of cardiovascular disease. This adds to the body of evidence that health disparities between rural and urban residents are at least partly attributable to lifestyle differences.
Bo Nielsen, Leppin, Gyrd-Hansen, Ejg Jarbøl, Søndergaard, Veldt Larsen, and Larsen (2017) conducted a study in Denmark to examine potential gaps in preventative care as a contributing factor to the rural-urban outcome divide. As in many other studies, socioeconomic factors were linked to lifestyle choices that in turn increased the likelihood of cardiovascular disease. In their study, rural residents were more likely to smoke, maintain poor diets, and abstain from exercise.
Campbell, Manns, Weaver, Hemmelgarn, King-Shier, and Sanmartin (2017) conducted a study in Canada that was not specifically framed around the rural-urban question. They found, however, that the correlation between lower socioeconomic status and higher rates of cardiovascular disease held in their data. They specifically cited financial barriers to accessing medications and healthy food as reasons why people with lower incomes faced higher rates of cardiovascular disease. While this study removes the rural-urban dynamic from the argument, it lends further support to the link between socioeconomic status and greater incidence of cardiovascular disease.
Access to Care: Physicians, Specialists, and Transportation
In South Carolina, rural residents face additional barriers, including several that are not directly linked to socioeconomic status. Barriers identified in that context include lack of health insurance, lack of knowledge, misperceptions, fear, and limited accessibility — all cited as reasons why rural South Carolinians do not participate in clinical trials (Kim, Tanner, Friedman, Foster, & Bergeron, 2014). A reasonable argument can be made that these same factors apply to other forms of health care as well.
Syed, Gerber, and Sharp (2013) examined transportation barriers faced by rural residents. Analyzing 61 different studies, they found that transportation barriers were frequently cited as issues by rural patients. This form of analysis does not seek to validate the view that transportation is a barrier — only to document that patients themselves identify it as one. The authors found the strongest association among people with lower incomes and those who were uninsured or underinsured. The former group may find traveling for care to be a legitimate financial burden; the latter group may be unable to pay for care but cite other reasons for not seeking it. There are unanswered questions that would require examining the constituent studies in greater detail to resolve fully.
One of the biggest challenges in cardiovascular care is that treatment must be highly individual-centered and personal. In particular, preventative care must meet these requirements, as each patient needs an individualized health plan to effectively manage cardiovascular risk (Harrington & Heidenreich, 2015). Rural residents who experience the worst cardiovascular outcomes are often those who face the greatest obstacles: they do not receive the preventative care they need, nor the individualized care required to manage their heart health effectively.
One study that offers a counterpoint to many of these findings is Choo, McGeary, Farman, Greyling, Cross, and Leslie (2014), who found that in rural Scotland, referral rates between rural and urban patients were not significantly different. However, this is a single study, and findings applicable in Scotland may not translate to other countries, where health care practices and systems differ considerably. That said, it is valuable to know that rural location need not inherently pose barriers to care, and that system-level factors can mitigate geographic disadvantage.
References
Abbott, L., Williams, C., Slate, E., & Gropper, S. (2018). Promoting heart health among rural African Americans. Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing, 33(1), E8–E14. doi:10.1097/JCN.0000000000000410
Allenby, A., Kinsman, L., Tham, R., Symons, J., Jones, M., & Campbell, S. (2016). The quality of cardiovascular disease prevention in rural primary care. Australian Journal of Rural Health, 24(2), 92–98. doi:10.1111/ajr.12224
Amponsah, W. A., Tabi, M. M., & Gibbison, G. A. (2015). Health disparities in cardiovascular disease and high blood pressure among adults in rural underserved communities. Online Journal of Rural Nursing & Health Care, 15(1), 185–208. doi:10.14574/ojrnhc.v15i1.351
Bo Nielsen, J., Leppin, A., Gyrd-Hansen, D., Ejg Jarbøl, D., Søndergaard, J., Veldt Larsen, P., & Larsen, P. V. (2017). Barriers to lifestyle changes for prevention of cardiovascular disease — a survey among 40–60-year-old Danes. BMC Cardiovascular Disorders, 17, 1–8. doi:10.1186/s12872-017-0677
Campbell, D. T., Manns, B. J., Weaver, R. G., Hemmelgarn, B. R., King-Shier, K. M., & Sanmartin, C. (2017). Financial barriers and adverse clinical outcomes among patients with cardiovascular-related chronic diseases: A cohort study. BMC Medicine, 15, 1–13. doi:10.1186/s12916-017-0788-6
Choo, W. K., McGeary, K., Farman, C., Greyling, A., Cross, S. J., & Leslie, S. J. (2014). Utilisation of a direct access echocardiography service by general practitioners in a remote and rural area — distance and rurality are not barriers to referral. Rural & Remote Health, 14(4), 1–6.
Haraldsdottir, S., Gudmundsson, S., Thorgeirsson, G., Lund, S. H., & Valdimarsdottir, U. A. (2017). Regional differences in mortality, hospital discharges and primary care contacts for cardiovascular disease. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health, 45(3), 260–268. doi:10.1177/1403494816685341
Harrington, R. A., & Heidenreich, P. A. (2015). Team-based care and quality: A move toward evidence-based policy. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 66, 1813–1815.
Hughes, A., Watanabe-Galloway, S., Schnell, P., & Soliman, A. (2015). Rural-urban differences in colorectal cancer screening barriers in Nebraska. Journal of Community Health, 40(6), 1065–1074. doi:10.1007/s10900-015-0032-2
Kim, S., Tanner, A., Friedman, D., Foster, C., & Bergeron, C. (2014). Barriers to clinical trial participation: A comparison of rural and urban communities in South Carolina. Journal of Community Health, 39(3), 562–571. doi:10.1007/s10900-013-9798-2
Rodgers, G. P., Conti, J. B., Feinstein, J. A., Griffin, B. P., Kennett, J. D., Shah, S., Walsh, M. N., Williams, E. S., & Williams, J. L. (2009). ACC 2009 survey results and recommendations: Addressing the cardiology workforce crisis. Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 54, 1195–1208.
Syed, S., Gerber, B., & Sharp, L. (2013). Traveling towards disease: Transportation barriers to health care access. Journal of Community Health, 38(5), 976–993. doi:10.1007/s10900-013-9681-1
Already a member? Log in
Unlock the rest of this paper
135,000+ research papers · AI writing tools · Plagiarism & AI detection
24-Hour Pass
Does not renew
Get 24-Hour PassMonthly
Renews at $12.99/month until canceled
Start MonthlyAnnual
Renews at $99/year until canceled
Start Annual- Unlimited AI writing tools
- Plagiarism and AI text detection tool
Plan details
Unlimited AI writing tools are for individual, non-automated use and are subject to our Terms of Service and abuse-prevention measures.
TextChecker scans: 1 during the 24-Hour Pass, or 5 per month with Monthly and Annual.
Prices exclude applicable tax.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.