Urban-rural differences in daily time-activity patterns, occupational activity and housing characteristics
Bibliographic record
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.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".