Evaluation Review

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click Here for More Information

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Kane, R.
Right arrow Articles by Solomon, M.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Kane, R.
Right arrow Articles by Solomon, M.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Evaluation Review, Vol. 3, No. 2, 139-189 (1979)
DOI: 10.1177/0193841X7900300201

An Evaluation of Rural Health Care Research

Robert Kane

Rand Corporation and the University of California at Los Angeles

Marilyn Dean

Rand Corporation

Marian Solomon

U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare

This article reviews the state of the art of rural health research and evaluation with par ticular emphasis on the questions of access, health personnel, and financing. The current state of knowledge both in the published and in the unpublished literature in each area is summarized and a series of unresolved issues is proposed. A strategy for further research to include the various types of rural health care programs is described. Major findings suggest that, although rural populations do have somewhat less access to care than do urban populations, our ability to quantify precisely the extent and importance of this discrepancy is underdeveloped. Despite a substantial investment in a variety of rural health care programs there is inadequate information as to their effectiveness. Programs designed to increase the supply of health personnel to rural areas have met with mixed success. Sites staffed by National Health Service Corps personnel show consistently lower productivity than do sites under other sponsorship. Nonphysician personnel (physician assistants and nurse practitioners) offer apromising source of primary carefor rural areas; recent legislation that reimburses such care should increase their utilization. A persistent problem is the expectation (often a mandate) incorporated into many rural health care demonstration efforts that the programs become financially self-sufficient in a finite period of time. Self-sufficiency is a function of utilization, productivity, and the ability to recover charges for services. In many instances stringent enforcement of the self-suf ficiency requirement may mean those those who need the services most will be least likely to receive them.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?