5 research outputs found
Recommended from our members
The Health Status and Unique Health Challenges of Rural Older Adults in California
Examines the demographics, health, and levels of physical activity and food insecurity of rural seniors compared with those of urban and suburban seniors. Outlines environmental and social risk factors that require context-specific policies and programs
Recommended from our members
The Health Status and Unique Health Challenges or Rural Older Adults in California
Despite living in the countryside where open space is plentiful and there is often significant agricultural production, rural older adults have higher rates of overweight/obesity, physical inactivity and food insecurity than older adults living in suburban areas. All three conditions are risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and repeated falls. This policy brief examines the health of rural elders and, by contrast, their urban counterparts, and finds that both groups lmost one in five California adults age 65 and over (18.2% or about 710,000 seniors) lived in a rural area in 2007. A rural area is defined as a nonmetropolitan area with fewer than 950 persons per square mile.1 The low population density of rural areas creates special challenges for addressing the health needs of rural seniors. Using data from the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS 2007), the social characteristics, health risks and health conditions of older adults living in rural areas are examined and contrasted with older adults in both urban and suburban areas.We then identify policies that more specifically address the health needs of rural older Californians. Older adults in rural California are less likely to be female (53.4%) and less likely to be of a racial/ethnic minority (20.8%) compared to older adults in other regions. Rural older adults are somewhat more likely to have low incomes (26.8%) than suburban older adults, but both groups have lower rates of poverty than urban elders. High education levels are more similar between rural and urban areas (28.7% and 25.9%, respectively), which are both lower than suburban rates. Rural and suburban older adults are also less likely than urban elders to live alone (Exhibit 1). Although the demographic characteristics between rural and urban elders often vary, they share common contextual factors that may impact their resulting health risks and health conditions. Both regions experience more problems than suburban areas with access to food outlets, parks, exercise facilities and health care sites. Limitations in the physical environment can lead to difficulties are more likely to be unhealthy than suburban older adults. Yet rural elders, because of their geographical isolation and lack of proximity to health care providers, experience unique environmental and other risk factors that require context-specific solutions to these health issues. In both policies and programs that impact health, policymakers need to take into account the distinctive environmental and social context of older adults living in California’s countryside
Recommended from our members
The Health Status and Unique Health Challenges or Rural Older Adults in California
Despite living in the countryside where open space is plentiful and there is often significant agricultural production, rural older adults have higher rates of overweight/obesity, physical inactivity and food insecurity than older adults living in suburban areas. All three conditions are risk factors for heart disease, diabetes and repeated falls. This policy brief examines the health of rural elders and, by contrast, their urban counterparts, and finds that both groups lmost one in five California adults age 65 and over (18.2% or about 710,000 seniors) lived in a rural area in 2007. A rural area is defined as a nonmetropolitan area with fewer than 950 persons per square mile.1 The low population density of rural areas creates special challenges for addressing the health needs of rural seniors. Using data from the 2007 California Health Interview Survey (CHIS 2007), the social characteristics, health risks and health conditions of older adults living in rural areas are examined and contrasted with older adults in both urban and suburban areas.We then identify policies that more specifically address the health needs of rural older Californians. Older adults in rural California are less likely to be female (53.4%) and less likely to be of a racial/ethnic minority (20.8%) compared to older adults in other regions. Rural older adults are somewhat more likely to have low incomes (26.8%) than suburban older adults, but both groups have lower rates of poverty than urban elders. High education levels are more similar between rural and urban areas (28.7% and 25.9%, respectively), which are both lower than suburban rates. Rural and suburban older adults are also less likely than urban elders to live alone (Exhibit 1). Although the demographic characteristics between rural and urban elders often vary, they share common contextual factors that may impact their resulting health risks and health conditions. Both regions experience more problems than suburban areas with access to food outlets, parks, exercise facilities and health care sites. Limitations in the physical environment can lead to difficulties are more likely to be unhealthy than suburban older adults. Yet rural elders, because of their geographical isolation and lack of proximity to health care providers, experience unique environmental and other risk factors that require context-specific solutions to these health issues. In both policies and programs that impact health, policymakers need to take into account the distinctive environmental and social context of older adults living in California’s countryside
Understanding Access to Healthy Foods and Grocery Shopping Patterns Among Community Residents in Underserved Neighborhoods in Tampa, Florida
Objectives:It is widely accepted that low-income and racial/ethnic minority neighborhoods are disproportionately affected by diet-related adverse health outcomes. Access to healthy foods has also been shown to be a determinant of more optimal dietary intake and health. This study aimed to conduct a survey to examine grocery shopping patterns and food access among community residents in underserved neighborhoods; the study was conducted in partnership with community organizations. Methods: A survey was administered cross-sectionally. Twenty-seven questions adapted from previous research regarding grocery shopping patterns and food access were included. Community residents aged ≥18 years in East Tampa, a designated Florida Community Redevelopment Area (CRA), were recruited at community events/meetings, and an online version of the survey was distributed through the email listserv of community partners. A total of 126 residents participated; the majority was African American, female, and ≥35 years of age. Descriptive statistics were used for data analysis. GIS mapping was subsequently used to examine the residents’ accessibility to grocery stores within the neighborhoods. Results: The majority (58%) of the participants reported that they usually buy most of their groceries at supermarkets, followed by large chain stores (41%), farmers markets (11%), and discount stores (10%). There were 4 major stores in the neighborhoods identified as preferred grocery stores. Most participants indicated that they use cash (52%) or EBT card (30%) for grocery shopping, and 33% regularly get food from food pantries. Most residents use their own cars (76%) for transportation and indicated that it takes ≤30 minutes (87%) to get their groceries. Ninety participants (71%) indicated that a new supermarket nearby would help them get food easier, followed by a new farmers market. In an open-ended question, some reported that mobile food trucks or delivery services would make it easier to get the foods. A specific location for a new supermarket was identified by each participant. Conclusions: Community residents demanded a new supermarket or farmers market with better variety of fresh produce. The results of this study have been discussed with the community partners and the CRA advisory committee