{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.018779342723004695, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.178743961352657, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A rural advantage? Urban-rural health differences in northern England.

Rural health inequalities have been relatively neglected in recent years. The data assembled for a large study of health and deprivation in the Northern Region of England have been reanalysed to examine three questions. How wide are rural health inequalities compared with those in urban areas? Is health intrinsically better in rural areas, given comparable deprivation or affluence? Is the association between health and wealth weaker in rural than in urban areas? It is shown that, although health inequalities are wider in urban areas, this corresponds to wider socio-economic divisions: at equivalent levels of wealth, health measures are similar. This relationship breaks down, however, when the most remote rural areas are compared with matching localities in conurbations, for in this case rural areas have a clear advantage. We go on to show that the apparent weakness of the association between health and wealth in rural areas is largely an artefact; the association becomes stronger when the units of population (electoral wards) are enlarged to resemble more closely those in urban contexts. The comparability of rural and urban forms of deprivation is discussed in the light of these results.