I was the first chair of rural health in Australia, so I got asked that question a lot around the world. I would say that rural is a bit like beauty or pornography: it's in the eye of the beholder. It's very much a mindset, more or less, as John has said. You then do have to, for different purposes, construct definitions according to what you're looking at. I'd agree with what Dr. Wootton said, that if you're looking at rural health service and rural practitioners, rural practitioners are extended generalists who provide a wide range of services and carry a higher level of clinical responsibility in relative professional isolation. That's true whether you're talking about family doctors, or surgeons, or internists, or pharmacists, or nurses, or nurse practitioners, or physiotherapists. I think that's a useful working definition if you're looking at health human resources.
In terms of interprofessional care and interprofessional education, my observation is that in the cities there's a lot of talk about teamwork and interprofessional collaboration. In the rural areas, particularly the small communities, it actually happens much more often. It's born out of necessity; there aren't enough health care providers. The rural practitioners live in the community they serve, so they're part of the community and they work very well together to meet the needs of the community they serve.