Conceptualizing rurality: The impact of definitions on the rural mortality penalty.

Background: In the U.S., inequality is widespread and still growing at nearly every level conceivable. This is vividly illustrated in the long-standing, well-documented inequalities in outcomes between rural and urban places in the U.S.; namely, the rural mortality penalty of disproportionately higher mortality rates in these areas. But what does the concept of "rural" capture and conjure? How we explain these geographic differences has spanned modes of place measurement and definitions. We employ three county-level rural-urban definitions to (1) analyze how spatially specific and robust rural disparities in mortality are and (2) identify whether mortality outcomes are dependent on different definitions. Methods: We compare place-based all-cause mortality rates using three typologies of "rural" from the literature to assess robustness of mortality rates across these rural and urban distinctions. Results show longitudinal all-cause mortality rate trends from 1968 to 2020 for various categories of urban and rural areas. We then apply this data to rural and urban geography to analyze the similarity in the distribution of spatial clusters and outliers in mortality using spatial autocorrelation methodologies. Results: The rural disadvantage in mortality is remarkably consistent regardless of which rural-urban classification scheme is utilized, suggesting the overall pattern of rural disadvantage is robust to any definition. Further, the spatial association between rurality and high rates of mortality is statistically significant. Conclusion: Different definitions yielding strongly similar results suggests robustness of rurality and consequential insights for actionable policy development and implementation.

A National Review of State Laws for Stock Epinephrine in Schools.

BACKGROUND: Anaphylaxis is a life-threatening allergic reaction with significant risk for children with allergies. Access to potentially life-saving medication is critical for these children. This review aims to describe state laws and policies guiding stock epinephrine in schools for allergic or anaphylactic events and detail recommendations for best practices. METHODS: This paper is a comprehensive review of the 50 states and the District of Columbia's (DC) laws and policies for stock epinephrine at schools for children in pre-kindergarten through 12th grade. RESULTS: All 50 states and DC allow undesignated epinephrine in schools to use for allergic or anaphylactic reactions. A key difference arises in whether states allow (N = 37) or mandate (N = 14) that schools stock epinephrine. States exhibit differences in the body responsible for developing stock epinephrine policy (N = 48), along with stakeholders responsible for developing procedures (N = 30) and implementing them (N = 19). Differences also exist in state epinephrine procurement, administration, training, and liability. CONCLUSIONS: This review of stock epinephrine laws and policies highlights the significant variation in state legislation despite widespread adoption. Only one-quarter of states mandate that schools have stock epinephrine available for emergency use, underscoring need for a more unified approach with consistent guidelines, comprehensive training, and possible funding for implementation.