Social determinants of health: Whose responsibility? - May - 2013 - Australian Journal of Rural Health. In Australia, when issues of health status are discussed, these discussions are often influenced by bigger issues affecting health outcomes including housing, education, transport, employment, income and access to health-care services.
There is strong evidence that these social determinants impact on the health and well-being of individuals and communities. Health-care providers and their agencies, however, are not deemed responsible for addressing these determinants of health – they are seen as too big and intractable for the health sector alone. In this editorial, it will be suggested that there is in fact space and need for health providers to incorporate and address these social determinants. Factsheet determinants health rural australia. The National Centre for Farmer Health. Fact-sheet-05-health%20promtion%20in%20rural%20australia_0.pdf. Impact of rurality on health status. Health outcomes, as exemplified by higher rates of death, tend to be poorer outside major cities.
The main contributors to higher death rates in regional and remote areas are coronary heart disease, other circulatory diseases, motor vehicle accidents and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (e.g. emphysema). These higher death rates may relate to differences in access to services, risk factors and the regional/remote environment. Clear differences exist in health service usage between areas. There are, for example, lower rates of some hospital surgical procedures, lower rates of GP consultation and generally higher rates of hospital admission in regional and remote areas than in major cities. There are also inter-regional differences in risk factors; for example, people from regional and remote areas tend to be more likely than their major cities counterparts to smoke and drink alcohol in harmful or hazardous quantities.
Factsheet-determinants-health-rural-australia.pdf. No Cookies. Julie McLellan outside her shop in Wycheproof.
Picture: Norm Oorloff Source: News Corp Australia VICTORIA’S population may be booming, but the number of residents in some regional areas is expected to decline in coming decades. By 2031, the state’s population will near 8 million, with Melbourne to absorb most of the growth. New State Government data reveals that regional cities Geelong will grow to nearly 300,000, Bendigo to 145,000 and Ballarat to 140,000. Mitchell Shire, just north of Melbourne, containing Kilmore and Seymour, is the state’s fastest growing municipality and by 2031 will have 86,000 people — more than double its population in 2011.
However, several places around the state will buck the trend and actually lose people. . Buloke Shire, in the northwest — taking in Wycheproof and Sea Lake — is expected to have 5300 people in 16 years’ time, down 1200 on 2011. KPMG partner Bernard Salt looks at the opportunities and challenges facing Australia's young and old demographics. A village of 70 folks might have the secret to living sustainably. Igiugig, Alaska.
Population: 70. Yes, 70. Small town, ain't it? Also known as Igyaraq in the Central Alaskan Yup'ik language, Igiugig is a city that is going down an incredible path I hope more cities will follow. You see, Igiugig calls itself a renewable village. What does that mean? They grow their own food — basil, cauliflower, cabbage, tomatoes, zucchini, squash, you name it. In short: Igiugig relies on locally grown food and local energy sources. They don't rely on supermarkets, energy companies, or any external entities to survive. Seriously, what can't they do? Well, funny question...
As awesome as they are, the Igiugig residents still face a lot of obstacles that are out of their control. They're not superhuman, and there are forces much stronger than them affecting the land they live on. Still, they should be an inspiration for the future. The end of the family farm - or just the usual cyclic trend? Economists are once again predicting the end of the family farm, and suggesting that the future of Australian agriculture belongs firmly with corporate farming.
The end of the family farm has been predicted in the past, yet the model prevails. Is there anything different this time? Business advisory group KPMG has released it's assessment of the future of agriculture in Australia, and concluded that demographic trends and likely booming future demand will inevitably mean the rise of corporate agriculture, and the demise of the family farm.
Certainly, the global demand side projections noted by KPMG have been noted elsewhere over the past five years (see the Australian Farm Institute study of the implications of increased protein demand in Asia), and the decline in the number of young people taking up careers in agriculture has also been well documented, but precisely why this might mean an increase in corporate-style agricultural businesses is unclear.
Family farmers continue to be pushed off the land. Study finds that Australia’s farmer population is ‘competitively young’ Study finds that Australia’s farmer population is ‘competitively young’ 16 Jul 2014 A new study funded by the Rural Industries R&D Corporation has found that, while the number of younger farmers entering agriculture continues to fall, the Australian farm population remains ‘competitively young’ compared to other developed economies.
The report, titled ‘New entrants to Australian agricultural industries – where are all the young farmers?’ Used Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) population census data from the eight censuses conducted between 1976 to 2011 to examine the current demographic structure of the Australian farmer population.