Demographic and Health Characteristics of Rural- and Urban-Dwelling Canadians With Chronic Back Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
STUDY DESIGN: This is a cross-sectional design based on analysis of a national survey. OBJECTIVE: To compare rural- and urban-dwelling adults with self-reported chronic back disorders (CBDs) with respect to their demographic, socioeconomic, comorbidity, and other health status indicators. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: People living in more rural and geographically remote areas have a greater risk of reporting CBD. Very little is known about whether the characteristics among people with CBD are different between rural and urban dwellers. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of the 2009 and 2010 Canadian Community Health Surveys to develop a profile of adults with CBD, comparing populations defined by relative rurality of residence. In addition to descriptive analysis using proportions and bivariate logistic regression, multiple logistic regression was used to control for possible confounding and to better understand the differences between rural- and urban-dwelling Canadians with CBD. RESULTS: With few exceptions, the descriptive bivariate analysis showed significant differences in demographic, socioeconomic, and health status indicators between rural and urban dwellers with CBD. We found no significant differences with respect to self-reported physical and sedentary activity levels, presence of asthma, presence of mood disorders, probability of depression, and self-rated mental health and pain and self-reported pain and function. The multivariate analysis showed that among adults with CBD, rural residence was significantly associated with lower levels of education (odds ratio [OR], 1.39-1.85), Aboriginal ethnicity (OR, 1.72), being married or in a common-law relationship (OR 1.44), being a former smoker (OR, 1.17) or current smoker (OR, 1.31), and being obese (OR, 1.24), regardless of the presence or number of comorbidities. CONCLUSION: There are significant sociodemographic and lifestyle differences between rural and urban Canadians with CBD. These differences may have implications for the design and delivery of more equitable and appropriate health services as well as health promotion and prevention efforts. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE: 2.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".