Policy attention to growing rural “health care deserts” tends to identify rural distance as a primary spatial barrier to accessing care. This paper brings together geography, health policy, and ethnographic methods to instead theorize distance as an expansive and illuminating concept that highlights place-based expertise. It specifically engages rural women's interpretations of rural distance as a multifaceted dimension of accessing health care, which includes but is not limited to women's health services and maternity care. Presenting qualitative research with 51 women in a rural region of the U.S., thematic findings reveal an interpretation of barriers to rural health care as moral failings rather than as purely spatial or operational challenges, along with wide communication of negative health care experiences owing to spatially-disparate but trusted social networks. Amid or owing to the rural crisis context, medical mistrust here emerges as a meaningful but largely unrecognized barrier to rural women's ability—and willingness—to obtain health care. This underscores how a novel interpretation of distance may inform policy efforts to address rural medical deserts.

In 2019, there were multiple outbreaks of measles in the United States. In the context of the public awareness of these outbreaks, we performed an intervention with the intent to improve the rate of measles immunization in our pediatric population. Pediatric patients that were lacking adequate measles immunization were identified by electronic medical record (EMR) survey. Charts were reviewed and updated if records were found to be incomplete. Parents of the remaining children were sent a letter, personally signed by the child’s primary care provider, encouraging measles immunization. A measles fact sheet, produced by the United States Center for Disease Control, was also included with the letter. There were 44 patients in the study group whose parents received a letter and measles fact sheet. As a result, 5 of these children were brought in for a measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) immunization. The 44 patients whose parents received a letter included 20 patients whose parents had previously expressed intent to not vaccinate their children as documented in the EMR. None of these children received an MMR immunization. Although small in scope, this project provides a glimpse into the importance of personal provider guidance to parents who are inclined to immunize their children. Unfortunately, it also demonstrated that provider advice did not change the opinions of parents who had already taken a stance against vaccination, even in the context of an urgent public health situation that had garnered widespread coverage in the lay press and social media.