The point of such a study (the KCUR article is essentially blogspam, someone below posted a link to the study in Nature) has nothing to do with "east coast thin

The point of such a study (the KCUR article is essentially blogspam, someone below posted a link to the study in Nature) has nothing to do with "east coast thinking" or whatever culture war thing you're alluding to. It's this: Although DHS surveys primarily cover low-to-middle-income countries, and thus do not fully represent all socioeconomic contexts, our results illustrate reciprocal relationships between accessibility and key metrics of human wellbeing in many geographical, political, and economic settings. We found a clear association between higher household wealth and greater accessibility to population centres (Fig. 3a). Similar patterns emerged for measures of educational attainment (Fig. 3b) and treatment of fever among children under five (Fig. 3c). Although exceptions occurred (for example, there were wealthy household clusters far from cities and vice versa), and the selected metrics were strongly collinear, the association between accessibility to cities and indicators of human wellbeing in low-to-middle-income countries was unequivocal. Some of the small towns listed by WAPO probably are the statistical outliers mentioned in the paper. A town on a major freeway and with an airport isn't necessarily in the "middle of nowhere" in the way the paper's authors are really worried about, which is access to services and economic activity. (On the other hand, in a few measurable ways, like crime, such crossroads towns are sometimes worse off than towns truly in the middle of nowhere, so if you're looking for a place to live you'd want to take it on case by case basis rather than making generalizations.)