South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS) The ...

South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS)

The Health Status of South Australians by Socio-Economic Status (SEIFA) Eleonora Dal Grande Anne Taylor Heather Jury Natalie Greenland Population Research and Outcome Studies

This work is copyright. It may be reproduced and the Population Research and Outcome Studies (PROS) welcomes requests for permission to reproduce in the whole or in part for work, study or training purposes subject to the inclusion of an acknowledgment of the source and not commercial use or sale. PROS will only accept responsibility for data analysis conducted by PROS staff or PROS supervision. Published June 2004 by the South Australian Department of Health Population Research and Outcome Studies Unit PO Box 287 Rundle Mall 5000 South Australia, Australia The National Library of Australia Cataloguing- in-Publication entry:

The health status of South Australians by socio-economic status (SEIFA) : South Australian monitoring and surveillance system July 2002 - June 2003. ISBN 0 7308 9352 9. 1. Health surveys - South Australia. 2. Health status indicators - South Australia. 3. Public health - Methodology. I. Dal Grande, E. II. South Australia. Population Research and Outcome Studies Unit. 614.429423

In accordance with the Copyright Act 1968 a copy of each book published must be lodged with the National Library. Under relevant State or Territory Legislation a copy must also be lodged with the appropriate library or libraries in the state of publication. For information about Legal Deposit, see the website at: http://www.nla.gov.au/services/ldeposit.html or contact the LegalDeposit Unit, National Library of Australia on 02 6262 1312. This document can be found online at: http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/PROS.html

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................................................................... 5

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................... 11

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY..................................................... 13

2.1 Background.......................................................................................................................................13

2.2 Methodology .....................................................................................................................................14

CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDEX FOR AREAS INDEX OF RELATIVE SOCIO-

ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE (SEIFA IRSD) .................................................................. 19

3.1 Description........................................................................................................................................19

3.2 Demographic profile by SEIFA IRSD..............................................................................................21

CHAPTER 4: OVERALL HEALTH STATUS .................................................................... 25

CHAPTER 5: HEALTH SERVICES UTILISATION............................................................ 27

CHAPTER 6: CO-MORBIDITY, INJURY, DISABILITY ..................................................... 31

6.1 Diabetes.............................................................................................................................................31

6.2 Asthma ..............................................................................................................................................32

6.3 Respiratory Problems......................................................................................................................33

6.4 Cardiovascular Disease...................................................................................................................34

6.5 Arthritis..............................................................................................................................................35

6.6 Osteoporosis ....................................................................................................................................36

6.7 Disability............................................................................................................................................37

6.8 Injury..................................................................................................................................................38

CHAPTER 7: HEALTH RELATED RISK FACTORS......................................................... 39

7.1 High Blood Pressure........................................................................................................................39

7.2 High Cholesterol...............................................................................................................................40

7.3 Body mass index (BMI)....................................................................................................................41

7.4 Smoking ............................................................................................................................................43

7.5 Alcohol risk.......................................................................................................................................44

7.6 Sunburn.............................................................................................................................................46

7.7 Nutrition.............................................................................................................................................47

7.8 Physical Activity ...............................................................................................................................56

4

CHAPTER 8: MENTAL HEALTH .................................................................................... 57

8.1 Prevalence of current self-reported diagnosed mental health condition ...................................57

8.2 Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)..................................................................................58

8.3 Suicidal ideation...............................................................................................................................59

8.4 Child mental health problems.........................................................................................................60

8.5 Child mental health treatment.........................................................................................................61

CHAPTER 9: PSYCHOSOCIAL EVENTS........................................................................ 63

CHAPTER 10: SOCIAL CAPITAL ................................................................................... 65

10.1 Neighbourhood Safety...................................................................................................................65

10.2 Neighbourhood trust......................................................................................................................66

10.3 Home safety ....................................................................................................................................67

10.4 Control over decisions that affect life ..........................................................................................68

10.5 Problems with transport ................................................................................................................69

CHAPTER 11: DAYS LOST OR LIMITED BECAUSE OF HEALTH .................................. 71

11.1 Days off from usual activities........................................................................................................71

11.2 Limited amount of work done .......................................................................................................72

APPENDIX 1: 2001 SEIFA INDEX OF RELATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE

(IRSD) QUINTILES BY POSTCODE................................................................................ 73

REFERENCES............................................................................................................... 74

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This report examines the relationship between socio-economic status (SES) and health and health-related issues using Australian Bureau of Statistics1,2 Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) scores. The data used to explore this relationship were obtained from the South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS). SAMSS is a population health survey system that commenced in July 2002 and systematically monitors trends of diseases, health related problems, risk factors and other issues, over time. Interviews (approximately 600) are undertaken every month in South Australia using Computer Assisted Telephone Interviewing (CATI) technology. The IRSD scores were grouped into quintiles (highest, high, middle, low and lowest) for analysis where the highest quintile represents postcodes with the highest IRSD scores (most advantaged areas) and the lowest quintile represents postcodes with the lowest IRSD scores (most disadvantaged areas). The following are the main findings of this report. Self-reported health status • The highest proportions of ‘fair or poor’ health were reported in the two lowest

quintiles (17.2% and 15.8%), while the highest proportion of ‘excellent, very good or good’ health was reported by people in the highest quintile (90.8%).

• For children aged 5 to 15 years, the proportion whose health was rated as fair or poor did not vary by SEIFA quintiles.

• A higher proportion of people aged 16 years and over who reported their health as fair or poor was found in the lowest quintile (19.1%), while a lower proportion was found in the highest quintile (10.4%).

Health service use People were asked if they had used a variety of health services in the four weeks prior to the survey: • People in the lowest quintile were more likely to have used a General Practitioner

(40.0%) or a hospital accident and emergency department (3.9%). Children aged 0 to 15 years in the lowest quintile were more likely to have used a child health nurse and/or Child and Youth Health worker in the last four weeks (10.8%).

Executive summary

6

People aged 16 years and over in the lowest quintile were less likely to have visited a dentist within the last two years (61.1%).

• Children aged 15 years and under (n=1265) living in the middle quintile areas reported a higher proportion of dental visits (97.9%).

• People in the highest quintile were less likely to have used a General Practitioner (28.4%).

• People aged 16 years and over in the highest quintile were more likely to have used optometrist (5.0%) and alternative therapist services (3.6%); and people of all ages in the highest quintile were less likely to have used a hospital accident and emergency department (1.7%). People aged 16 years and over within the highest quintile reported higher rates of dental visits in the previous two years (77.6%). This figure was the reverse for children aged 0 to 15 years where a lower proportion had visited a dentist within the last two years (90.7%).

• The proportion of people being admitted in a hospital, or who used a clinic in a hospital, specialist doctor, district nurse, physiotherapist, chiropractor or mental health specialist (psychiatrist or psychologist) did not vary by SEIFA quintile.

Co-morbidity, disability, injury • The prevalence of diabetes among people aged 16 years and over was higher in

the lowest quintile (8.5%). • The proportion of respondents aged 16 years and over reporting current asthma

(13.9%), other respiratory problems (5.2%), ever having cardio-vascular disease (7.8%) and osteoporosis (3.2%) did not vary between the quintiles. This was also the case for children aged 2 to 15 years with current asthma (17.9%).

• The respondents living in the lowest quintile reported the highest prevalence of arthritis (25.2%), followed by the middle quintile (24.6%). The people living in the highest quintile reported the lowest prevalence of arthritis (17.8%).

• People in the lowest quintile had a higher prevalence of disability, that is, they were limited in their activities because of an impairment or health problem (23.0%).

• Overall, 20.2% of people aged 65 years and over had a fall (including slips, trips and falls to the ground) in the past year. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting an injury between the quintiles.

Executive summary

7

Health-related risk factors • There were no statistically significant differences between the SEIFA quintiles for

adults ever having high blood pressure or high cholesterol. • Those people within the lowest quintile had a lower prevalence of people

classified as overweight (29.7%). Those in the highest quintile had a higher prevalence of people classified as overweight (38.9%). Those within the lowest and low quintiles had a higher prevalence of people classified as obese (23.9% and 23.2% respectively). Those within the high and highest quintiles had a lower prevalence of people classified as obese (15.5% and 13.1% respectively).

• The respondents in the lowest and low quintiles were more likely to be current smokers (26.6% and 24.5% respectively), and those within the highest quintile were less likely to be current smokers (14.6%).

• The respondents in the lowest quintile were more likely to be at risk of harm from alcohol in the short term (12.6%); and those within the highest quintile were less likely to be at risk of harm from alcohol in the short (5.8%) and long term (19.3%).

• Overall, 48.7% of the people aged 0 to 15 years reported getting sun burnt and 49.9% of people aged 16 years and over reported getting sun burnt in the last 12 months. This proportion was lower for people aged 16 years and over in the lowest quintile (46.1%).

• Overall, 47.7% (n=166) of people aged 4 - 7 years consumed two or more serves of vegetables per day with respondents living in the high quintile (64.6%) more likely to consume two or more serves of vegetables per day. Respondents living in the lowest quintile (36.3%) were less likely to consume two or more serves of vegetables per day.

• Overall, 21% (n=76) of people aged 8 - 11 years consumed three or more serves of vegetables per day with respondents living in the highest quintile (30.5%) more likely to consume three or more serves of vegetables per day.

• Overall, 14.7% (n=50) of people age 12 - 15 years reported consuming four or more serves of vegetables per day and 83.2% (n=283) consumed less than four serves per day. Respondents living in the middle (23.3%) and low (25.0%) quintiles were more likely to consume four or more serves of vegetables per day and respondents living in the high (91.0%) and highest (94.6%) quintile were less likely to consume four or more serves of vegetables per day.

Executive summary

8

• Respondents, four to fifteen years, living in the lowest quintile were less likely to consume three or more serves of fruit per day (11.9%) and more likely to consume one or less serves of fruit per day (14.0%). Respondents living in the highest quintile were more likely to consume three or more serves of fruit per day (26.8%) and less likely to consume one to two serves of fruit per day (63.0%). People living in the high quintile were less likely to eat three or more serves of fruit per day.

• Overall 16.7% (n=875) of respondents, 16 years and over, reported eating three or more serves of fruit per day, 25.1% (n=1315) reported eating two serves of fruit per day and 51.9% (n=2719) reported eating one serve or less of fruit per day. People living in the highest quintile were more likely to consume three or more serves (19.7%) or two serves (29.0%) of fruit per day and less likely to consume one or less serves of fruit per day (46.9). People living in the lowest quintile were less likely to eat two serves per day (21.2%) and people living in the low quintile were less likely to eat three or more serves per day (14.1%).

• There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting fried food consumption (potato chips, french fries, wedges, fried potatoes or crisps) between the quintiles.

• The proportion of people, aged 16 years and over, reporting the frequency of bread consumption (including bread rolls, flat breads, crumpets, bagels, English bread type muffins and cooked breakfast cereals) and pasta, rice or noodles consumption did not vary between SEIFA quintiles. The proportion of people, aged 16 years and over, consuming breakfast cereal rarely or never was lower in the middle quintile.

• The proportion of people undertaking sufficient activity was higher in the highest quintile (61.1%) and was lower in the lowest quintile (49.8%).

Mental health conditions • Overall, 13.5% of respondents aged 16 years and over reported being diagnosed

by a doctor with a mental health condition in the last 12 months or being currently treated for a mental health condition. However, this proportion did not vary by SEIFA quintiles.

• Similarly, the prevalence of psychological distress as defined by the Kessler 10 (10.9%) and suicidal ideation (6.0%) for adults in South Australia did not differ by SEIFA.

Executive summary

9

• Overall, 8.4% of parents or caregivers of children aged 2 to 15 years thought their child was having quite a lot or very much trouble with emotions, concentration, behaviour, or getting on with people. Those living in the lowest quintile reported the greatest percentage of problems (17.3%), while those people living in the highest quintile reported the smallest percentage of problems (2.5%).

• Parents of children aged between 2 and 15 years, living in the lowest quintile reported a higher proportion of children being treated for an emotional, mental or behavioural problem (15.2%). This proportion was lower for children living in the highest quintile (3.0%).

Psychosocial events People aged 16 years and over reported on psychosocial events that they had experienced over the previous 12 months: • People living in the lowest quintile reported a higher proportion of unplanned loss

of job (7.8%) and reported a lower proportion of new jobs (7.7%). • The proportion of new jobs (14.4%) and/or family or domestic violence was

higher for people living in the low quintile (2.9%). • Those within the high quintile had a higher proportion reporting family or

domestic violence (2.18%) and a lower proportion reporting new jobs (8.6%). • People living in the highest quintile had a higher proportion reporting new jobs

(17.1%), or being robbed or home burgled (7.0%). • There were no differences found for experiencing the death of someone close,

discrimination, moving house, marriage or relationship breakdown, or a serious injury or illness between the SEIFA quintiles.

Social capital • The highest, high and middle quintiles had a higher proportion of respondents

reporting that their neighbourhood was safe (92.8%, 93.3% and 92.7% respectively), while a lower proportion in the lowest and low quintile reported that their neighbourhood was safe (80.6% and 84.3% respectively).

• A higher proportion of people living in the highest and high quintile felt that people could be trusted in their neighbourhood (86.1% and 83.6% respectively), while this was reported by a lower proportion (67.5%) of those living in the lowest quintile.

Executive summary

10

• A lower proportion of people who felt safe in their own home all or most of the time was found for people living in the lowest and low quintiles (95.3% and 95.8% respectively), while a higher proportion was found for people living in the high quintile (99.3%).

• People living in the middle quintile reported the greatest percentage of control over the decisions that affect their life (93.7%).

• Overall, 12.3% of parents or caregivers of children aged 0 to 15 years (n=1262) felt they had problems with transport when wanting to go, for example, to hospital, medical appointments, recreational facilities, visiting people, shopping, school or childcare. People living in the lowest quintile reported a higher proportion of problems with transport (17.9%) whereas this proportion was lower for people living in the middle quintile (7.9%).

Days lost or limited because of health • Overall, 15.4% of people aged 16 years and over reported that they were totally

unable to work due to their health for at least one day in the previous four weeks. This proportion was higher for people within the lowest quintile (18.7%), and lower for people within the high quintile (12.7%).

• Overall, 22.8% of people aged 16 years and over were partially unable to work or carry out their normal duties for one or more days in the previous four weeks. This proportion did not vary between SEIFA quintiles.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION Use of the Australian Bureau of Statistics' Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) scores has become an accepted proxy measure for socio-economic status (SES) based on regional analyses in Australia. One of the four SEIFA scores, the Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) draws on a variety of personal and household characteristics available from the 2001 Census, and allows areas to be ranked in terms of their SES. Variables underlying the measure include low income families, unemployed people, people without educational qualifications, households renting public housing and people in low skilled occupations. Using this index, areas can be defined as relatively advantaged (high scores) or relatively disadvantaged (low scores). This report examines the relationship between health-related issues and SEIFA IRSD using information collected from the South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS). In this early stage of SAMSS development only cross-sectional information is provided. Later reports assessing the health status of South Australians by SEIFA will include time series and trends data.

CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND METHODOLOGY

2.1 Background

2.1.1 Aims of SAMSS

The main objective of SAMSS is to systematically monitor the trends of diseases, health related problems, risk factors and other health services issues relevant to the SA Department of Health, over time. The aim of this system is to address the needs of the whole of the Department and to monitor key risk factor and population trends in priority chronic disease areas so that programs and policies can respond to changes in trends. These data monitor state and national health priority areas and will determine and measure the effectiveness of the Department of Health programs, interventions and strategic plans. This system collects ongoing data at the population level on the priority health areas and main indicators pertinent to the Department of Health policies. The risk factors included in the system are those critical to national and state health priority areas. The data ensures that appropriate, timely and valid population health information is available to monitor health status, respond to population changes and support planning implementation and evaluation of health services and programs. SAMSS will address these needs on the whole South Australian population, and interviews (or surrogate interviews) are conducted with people of all ages. Other objectives are to: • Provide high quality, representative data; • Characterise the problem or topic over time; • Detect epidemics or changes in the topic occurrence; • Identify high risk groups or risk factors associated with the problem or topic and

suggest hypotheses for further investigation; • Estimate the burden of the problem or topic; • Evaluate health service initiatives, prevention and control programs including the

effectiveness of these programs (directly or indirectly); • Highlight gaps in information and services that affect South Australians’ general

health and wellbeing; • Disseminate findings to professionals and administrators within the Department of

Health, and other health service professionals or organisations in South Australia and Australia;

Background and methodology

14

• Project future health care needs; • Set priorities for allocation of resources; and • Strengthen the network for surveillance and monitoring of issues relevant to the

Department of Health to improve information gathering and exchange.

2.1.2 Aim of report

This report aims to present key health and well-being indicators by Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (SEIFA IRSD) quintiles. This report presents frequency data from SAMSS for July 2002 to June 2003.

2.2 Methodology

2.2.1 Questions

Issues included in the questionnaire were based on the Department of Health and national/state priority areas and indicators with the intention of gathering appropriate data on key indicators. Topics that were included in SAMSS were developed by PROS in consultation with key personnel within the Department of Health, including relevant experts. Questions relating to children were developed in consultation with the SAMSS Children’s Committee that consists of state experts on children issues. A core set of questions is asked every month with additional questions asked in alternate months. These questions were based on previous work undertaken in the states and territories. Where possible, questions that had previously been included in other surveys, and had indicated their reliability/validity, were used or modified3,4. The full list of questions asked in SAMSS can be obtained at http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/PROS/samss.html.

2.2.2 Sample Selection

All households in South Australia with a telephone connected were eligible for selection in the sample. Each month, 860 South Australian residential telephone numbers are randomly selected from the Electronic White Pages.


15

2.2.3 Introductory letter

A letter introducing SAMSS was sent to the household of each selected telephone number. Within each household, the person who had their birthday last was selected for interview. There was no replacement for non-contactable persons. The letter informed people of the purpose of the survey and indicated that they could expect a telephone call within the time frame of the survey. During July 2002 to June 2003, 85.4% of those who participated indicated that they received a letter.

2.2.4 Data collection

Data was collected every month by a contracted agency and interviews were conducted in English.

2.2.5 CATI

The CATI III (Computer Assisted Telephone Interview) system was used to conduct the interviews. This system allows immediate entry of data from the interviewer’s questionnaire screen to the computer database. The main advantages of this system are the precise ordering and timing of call backs and correct sequencing of questions as specific answers are given. The CATI system enforces a range of checks on each response with most questions having a set of pre-determined response categories. In addition, CATI automatically rotates response categories, when required, to minimise bias. When open-ended responses are required, these are transcribed exactly by the interviewer.

2.2.6 Call backs

At least ten call-backs were made to the telephone number selected to interview household members. Different times of the day or evening were scheduled for each call-back. If a person could not be interviewed immediately they were re-scheduled for interview at a time suitable to them. Where a refusal was encountered, another interviewer (generally at the discretion of the supervisor) called later, in an endeavour to obtain the interview(s). Replacement interviews for persons who could not be contacted or interviewed were not permitted.


16

2.2.7 Validation

Of each interviewer’s work, 10% was selected at random for validation by the supervisor. The contracted agency is a member of Interviewer Quality Control Australia (IQCA).

2.2.8 Data Processing

After each occurrence of data collection, the raw data from the CATI system was imported into SPSS for analysis. Open-ended responses were saved in Excel format and the responses was either coded numerically and brought into the main SPSS database, or brought into SPSS as a string variable if necessary.

2.2.9 Weighting

The data presented in this report were weighted by age, sex and probability of selection in the household to the most recent ABS census data. Probability of selection in the household was calculated on the number of adults in the household and the number of listings in the White Pages. Weighting was used to correct for the disproportionality of the sample with respect to the populations of interest. The weights reflect unequal sample inclusion probabilities and compensate for differential non-response. The data were weighted using the ABS data so that the health estimates calculated would be representative of the adult populations of those areas. The weighting of the data results in occasional rounding effects for the numbers. In all instances the percentages should be the point of reference rather than the actual number of respondents. The percentages presented in this report have been processed on the figures pre-rounding.


17

2.2.10 Response Rates

The overall response rate of SAMSS for the 12 month period was 69.3%. Initially a sample of 10320 was drawn. Sample loss of 1447 occurred due to non-connected numbers (1087), non-residential numbers (218) and fax/modem connections (142).

Table 2.1: Response rate for July 2002 to June 2003

n % % range Initial eligible sample 8873 Refusals 988 11.1 8.8 13.8 Non-contact after six attempts 856 9.6 5.7 13.6 Foreign language 195 2.2 1.3 4.6 Incapacitated 300 3.4 2.2 5.1 Terminated 9 0.1 0.0 0.4 Respondent unavailable 380 4.3 2.3 6.5 Completed interviews 6145 Response rate 69.3 67.3 72.0 Participation rate 76.7 73.8 81.2

2.2.11 Average time

The average time for a person to complete the interview was 17.6 minutes for the July 2002 to June 2003 period.


18

CHAPTER 3: SOCIO-ECONOMIC INDEX FOR AREAS INDEX OF RELATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE (SEIFA IRSD)

3.1 Description

The Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) are a measure of socio-economic disadvantage produced from the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) Census data5,6. There are four SEIFA indexes that relate to socio-economic aspects of geographic areas. Each index summarises a different aspect of the socio-economic conditions in an area. The Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) has been constructed so that relatively advantaged areas (e.g. areas with many high income earners) have high index values, and relatively disadvantaged areas have relatively low index values. IRSD is a score given to a locality (ie collector’s district, postcode, suburb, local government area) and is a composite measure based on income, educational attainment, employment status, occupation type, family structure, dwellings, house ownership, marital status and ethnicity. The IRSD scores were applied at postcode level to the SAMSS data, and grouped into quintiles for analysis (Table 3.1). However, not all postcodes in Australia were given a SEIFA score and therefore 41 cases were excluded from further analysis. Based on locality, the quintiles represent equal populations for Australia using the 2001 census data, where the highest quintile comprises of postcodes with the highest IRSD scores (most advantaged areas).

Table 3.1: Quintiles ranges for ABS 2001 SEIFA IRSD

Quintile SEIFA IRSD score Lowest <937.0 Low ≥ 937.0 to < 980.8 Middle ≥ 980.8 to < 1020.0 High ≥ 1020.0 to < 1063.0 Highest ≥ 1063.0

SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage

20

Table 3.2 shows the proportion of respondents by the SEIFA IRSD quintiles by age group.

Table 3.2: SEIFA 2001 IRSD Quintiles, by age groups

0 to 15 years 16 years and over Total n % n % n % Lowest quintile (most disadvantaged)

212 16.8 838 17.3 1050 17.2

Low quintile 265 20.9 1009 20.9 1274 20.9 Middle quintile 244 19.3 1057 21.8 1302 21.3 High quintile 278 22.0 907 18.8 1185 19.4 Highest quintile (most advantaged) 266 21.0 1027 21.2 1293 21.2

Overall 1265 100.0 4839 100.0 6104 100.0 Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


21

3.2 Demographic profile by SEIFA IRSD

The demographic profile of respondents is shown in Table 3.3 to Table 3.5 for each quintile category, appropriately weighted to reflect population proportions.

Table 3.3: Demographic profile – sex, age, household size Lowest quintile Low quintile Medium

quintile High quintile Highest quintile

n % n % n % n % n % Sex Male 494 47.1 638 50.1 640 49.2 621 52.4 616 47.6 Female 556 52.9 636 49.9 661 50.8 565 47.6 677 52.4 Age groups 0 to 4 years 54 5.2 99 7.7 84 6.4 70 5.9 66 5.1 5 to 14 years 146 13.9 148 11.6 152 11.7 190 16.0 179 13.8 15 to 24 yrs 123 11.7 166 13.0 164 12.6 144 12.1 194 15.0 25 to 34 yrs 145 13.9 215 16.9 174 13.4 156 13.1 147 11.4 35 to 44 yrs 160 15.3 200 15.7 194 14.9 192 16.2 188 14.5 45 to 54 yrs 156 14.8 159 12.5 204 15.7 167 14.1 181 14.0 55 to 64 yrs 107 10.2 118 9.3 121 9.3 120 10.1 144 11.1 65 to 74 yrs 86 8.2 97 7.6 114 8.7 80 6.7 91 7.0 75+ yrs 73 7.0 72 5.6 96 7.4 67 5.6 105 8.1 Number of people, 16 years and over

1 168 16.0 184 14.5 173 13.3 144 12.1 150 11.6 2 585 55.8 797 62.6 799 61.4 707 59.7 752 58.1 3 or more 296 28.2 293 23.0 330 25.4 334 28.2 392 30.3 Children aged 0 to 15 years in household

None 571 54.4 652 51.2 708 54.4 603 50.9 702 54.3 Yes 479 45.6 622 48.8 594 45.6 582 49.1 591 45.7 Family structure Couple with children 518 49.3 646 50.7 636 48.8 644 54.3 686 53.1 Single with children 102 9.7 85 6.7 86 6.6 71 6.0 66 5.1 Single adult only 118 11.3 141 11.1 122 9.4 100 8.4 123 9.5 Couple only 217 20.7 281 22.0 329 25.3 263 22.2 288 22.3 Adults (related) 64 6.1 82 6.5 80 6.1 71 6.0 78 6.1 Unrelated adults 23 2.2 30 2.4 40 3.1 31 2.6 42 3.3 Other 8 0.8 8 0.7 9 0.7 6 0.5 9 0.7 Total 1050 100.0 1274 100.0 1302 100.0 1185 100.0 1293 100.0

Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


22

Table 3.4: Demographic profile – country of birth, language spoken at home other than English, marital status

Lowest quintile Low quintile Medium quintile

High quintile Highest quintile

n % n % n % n % n % Country of birth Australia 823 78.4 1063 83.4 1098 84.3 973 82.1 1068 82.6 U.K. and Ireland 107 10.2 111 8.7 109 8.3 111 9.4 97 7.5 New Zealand 9 0.9 12 0.9 7 0.5 12 1.0 21 1.6 Germany 13 1.3 7 0.6 13 1.0 12 1.1 13 1.0 Italy 11 1.1 12 1.0 9 0.7 10 0.8 15 1.2 Other Europe & USSR 48 4.6 37 2.9 37 2.9 34 2.9 30 2.3 Asia 27 2.6 16 1.3 18 1.4 13 1.1 23 1.8 Other 11 1.0 16 1.2 12 0.9 19 1.6 26 2.0 Total 1050 100.0 1274 100.0 1302 100.0 1185 100.0 1293 100.0 Speak a language, other than English, 2 years and over

Yes 128 12.5 103 8.3 115 9.0 103 8.9 102 8.1 No 900 87.5 1136 91.7 1157 91.0 1050 91.1 1163 91.9 Total 1028 100.0 1239 100.0 1271 100.0 1153 100.0 1265 100.0 Marital status, 16 years and over

Married, living with partner (de facto) 515 61.5 638 63.2 683 64.6 610 67.2 656 63.8

Separated, divorced 80 9.5 75 7.4 73 7.0 61 6.7 59 5.7 Widowed 66 7.9 68 6.7 61 5.8 48 5.3 60 5.9 Never married 176 21.0 227 22.5 239 22.6 187 20.6 253 24.6 Not stated - - 1 0.1 - - 1 0.1 - - Educational attainment, 16 years and over

Completed or some secondary, no schooling 586 70.2 668 66.3 640 60.6 549 60.5 483 47.1

TAFE, trade certificate, diploma 149 17.8 207 20.5 241 22.8 178 19.6 198 19.3

Degree or higher 100 12.0 133 13.2 175 16.6 180 19.8 344 33.6 Employment status, 16 years and over

Self employed 73 8.7 102 10.1 167 15.8 114 12.6 121 11.8 Employed for wages, salary

or payment in kind 363 43.3 498 49.3 452 42.7 468 51.6 470 45.8 Unemployed 45 5.3 23 2.3 26 2.5 19 2.1 20 2.0 Engaged in home duties 106 12.6 113 11.2 88 8.4 60 6.6 81 7.9 Student 41 4.9 38 3.8 74 7.0 57 6.3 116 11.3 Retired 164 19.6 187 18.6 221 20.9 167 18.4 202 19.7 Unable to work 46 5.5 47 4.7 26 2.5 21 2.3 15 1.5 Other 1 0.1 - - 3 0.3 - - 1 0.1 Total 838 100.0 1009 100.0 1057 100.0 907 100.0 1027 100.0



23

Table 3.5: Demographic profile – dwelling status, family’s money situation, gross annual household income

Lowest quintile Low quintile Medium quintile

High quintile Highest quintile

n % n % n % n % n % Dwelling status Owned or being purchased 830 79.0 1034 81.1 1112 85.5 1022 86.3 1101 85.1 Rented from the Housing

Trust 122 11.6 82 6.4 36 2.7 21 1.8 5 0.4 Rented privately 85 8.1 137 10.7 133 10.2 133 11.2 166 12.8 Other 13 1.3 21 1.7 20 1.6 9 0.7 22 1.7 Family’s money situation Spending more money than

getting 71 6.7 51 4.0 70 5.4 65 5.5 52 4.0 Have just enough money to

get through 241 23.0 264 20.8 239 18.4 169 14.2 188 14.5 There is some money left

over each week but just spent it 93 8.9 94 7.4 76 5.8 89 7.5 115 8.9

Can save a bit every now and then 515 49.0 665 52.2 689 52.9 646 54.5 652 50.4

Can save a lot 106 10.1 160 12.5 177 13.6 172 14.5 240 18.6 Not stated 24 2.3 39 3.1 50 3.9 44 3.7 46 3.6 Gross annual household income

Up to $20,000 276 26.2 257 20.2 260 20.0 186 15.7 186 14.4 $20,001 to $40,000 255 24.2 275 21.6 247 18.9 208 17.6 160 12.4 $40,001 to $60,000 193 18.4 259 20.3 249 19.1 260 22.0 187 14.5 $60,001 to $80,000 108 10.2 169 13.3 173 13.3 172 14.5 209 16.2 More than $80,000 85 8.1 175 13.7 210 16.1 226 19.0 382 29.6 Not stated 135 12.8 140 11.0 164 12.6 133 11.2 168 13.0 Total 1050 100.0 1274 100.0 1302 100.0 1185 100.0 1293 100.0



24

CHAPTER 4: OVERALL HEALTH STATUS This section reports on the respondent’s health status ascertained by self-reported general health status. Respondents aged five years and over (n=5732) were asked to rate their overall health status on a scale from excellent to poor*. Overall, 86.6% (95% CI 85.7 – 87.4; n=4962) of the respondents reported their overall health status as excellent, very good or good. The proportion of respondents who rated their health as excellent, very good or good, and fair or poor is shown in Table 4.1 by SEIFA Index of Relative Socio-Economic Disadvantage (IRSD) quintiles. People living in the low and lowest quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to report fair or poor health (17.2%), while people living in the highest quintile were more likely to report excellent, very good or good health (90.8%).

Table 4.1: Overall Health Status by SEIFA IRSD, 5 years and over Excellent, very good or good Fair or Poor n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 825 82.8 (80.4 – 85.1) ↓ 171 17.2 (14.9 – 19.6) ↑ Low quintile 990 84.2 (82.0 – 86.2) ↓ 186 15.8 (13.8 – 17.9) ↑ Middle quintile 1056 86.7 (84.7 – 88.5) 162 13.3 (11.5 – 15.3) High quintile 977 87.6 (85.6 – 89.5) 138 12.4 (10.5 – 14.4) Highest quintile 1114 90.8 (89.1 – 92.3) ↑ 113 9.2 (7.7 – 10.9) ↓ Overall 4962 86.6 (85.7 – 87.4) 770 13.4 (12.6 – 14.3) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003 The proportion of respondents aged 5 to 15 years (n=893) and respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) who rated their health as fair or poor is shown in Table 4.2 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents aged 5 to 15 years reporting fair or poor health between the quintiles. The proportion of respondents aged 16 years and over who reported their overall health status as fair or poor was significantly higher among the lowest quintile and significantly lower among the highest quintile.

* Surrogate interviews were conducted for respondents aged 15 years or less.

Overall health status

26

Table 4.2: Fair or Poor Overall Health Status by SEIFA IRSD, by age groups 5 to 15 years 16 years and over n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 11 7.1 (3.7 – 11.8) 160 19.1 (16.5 – 21.9) ↑ Low quintile 9 5.4 (2.7 – 9.7) 177 17.5 (15.3 – 20.0) Middle quintile 3 1.9 (0.4 – 5.0) 159 15.1 (13.0 – 17.3) High quintile 6 2.9 (1.2 – 5.9) 132 14.6 (12.4 – 17.0) Highest quintile 6 3.1 (1.2 – 6.1) 107 10.4 (8.7 – 12.4) ↓ Overall 36 4.0 (2.9 – 5.5) 735 15.2 (14.2 – 16.2) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

CHAPTER 5: HEALTH SERVICES UTILISATION This section reports on the utilisation of health care services. Use of health care services was investigated by asking all respondents (n=6104), except where listed below, questions on the number of times in the last four weeks they had used specific health services. The health care services included: • general practitioner; • hospital admissions; • hospital accident and emergency department; • hospital clinic; • specialist doctor; • district nurse; • optometrist; • physiotherapist; • chiropractor; • alternative therapist; • child health nurse or Child and Youth Health worker, 0-15 years (n=1267); • mental health professionals, 16 years and over (n=4863), and • dental services, 5 years and over (n=5758). The proportion of respondents reporting they had used these services is shown in Table 5.1 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. The following statistically significant differences were observed:

• Respondents in the high quintile reported statistically significantly less visits to a General Practitioner, while those in the lowest and low quintiles reported significantly more visits to a General Practitioner.

• Respondents in the lowest quintile reported used statistically significantly more child health nurse, Child and Youth Health worker services in the last four weeks.

• Those in the highest quintile used statistically significantly more likely to use optometrist or alternative therapist services.

Health service utilisation

28

Table 5.1: Prevalence of utilisation of health services by SEIFA IRSD General Practitioner Hospital: A&E Dept Hospital: Admission n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 420 40.0 (37.1 – 43.0) ↑ 41 3.9 (2.9 – 5.2) ↑ 27 2.6 (1.7 – 3.7) Low quintile 467 36.7 (34.0 – 39.3) ↑ 50 3.9 (3.0 – 5.1) ↑ 27 2.1 (1.4 – 3.0) Middle quintile 405 31.1 (28.7 – 33.7) 23 1.8 (1.2 – 2.6) 29 2.2 (1.5 – 3.1) High quintile 336 28.4 (25.8 – 31.0) ↓ 26 2.2 (1.5 – 3.2) 19 1.6 (1.0 – 2.4) Highest quintile 396 30.6 (28.1 – 33.2) 22 1.7 (1.1 – 2.5) ↓ 22 1.7 (1.1 – 2.5) Overall 2024 33.2 (32.0 – 34.3) 162 2.7 (2.3 – 3.1) 124 2.0 (1.7 – 2.4)

Hospital: Clinic Specialist Doctor Child Health Nurse

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 80 7.6 (6.1 – 9.3) 72 6.9 (5.4 – 8.5) 23 10.8 (7.2 – 15.6) ↑ Low quintile 86 6.8 (5.5 – 8.2) 103 8.1 (6.7 – 9.7) 22 8.3 (5.4 – 12.1) Middle quintile 71 5.5 (4.3 – 6.8) 111 8.5 (7.1 – 10.1) 9 3.7 (1.8 – 6.6) High quintile 56 4.7 (3.6 – 6.0) 75 6.3 (5.0 – 7.8) 18 6.5 (4.0 – 9.8) Highest quintile 61 4.7 (3.7 – 6.0) 106 8.2 (6.8 – 9.8) 14 5.3 (3.0 – 8.5) Overall 354 5.8 (5.2 – 6.4) 467 7.7 (7.0 – 8.3) 86 6.8 (5.5 – 8.3)

District Nurse Optometrist Physiotherapist

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 13 1.2 (0.7 – 2.1) 40 3.8 (2.8 – 5.1) 52 5.0 (3.8 – 6.4) Low quintile 20 1.6 (1.0 – 2.4) 39 3.1 (2.2 – 4.1) 49 3.8 (2.9 – 5.0) Middle quintile 19 1.5 (0.9 – 2.2) 37 2.8 (2.0 – 3.9) 47 3.6 (2.7 – 4.7) High quintile 17 1.4 (0.9 – 2.2) 42 3.5 (2.6 – 4.7) 53 4.5 (3.4 – 5.8) Highest quintile 11 0.9 (0.4 – 1.5) 65 5.0 (3.9 – 6.3) ↑ 63 4.9 (3.8 – 6.1) Overall 80 1.3 (1.0 – 1.6) 223 3.7 (3.2 – 4.1) 264 4.3 (3.8 – 4.9)

Chiropractor Alternative Therapist Mental Health (psychiatrist

and psychologist) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 50 4.8 (3.6 – 6.2) 18 1.7 (1.1 – 2.6) 14 1.4 (0.8 – 2.3) Low quintile 75 5.9 (4.7 – 7.3) 26 2.0 (1.4 – 2.9) 28 2.4 (1.6 – 3.4) Middle quintile 70 5.4 (4.2 – 6.7) 32 2.5 (1.7 – 3.4) 13 1.1 (0.6 – 1.8) High quintile 84 7.1 (5.7 – 8.7) 28 2.4 (1.6 – 3.4) 19 1.7 (1.1 – 2.6) Highest quintile 78 6.0 (4.8 – 7.4) 46 3.6 (2.6 – 4.7) ↑ 18 1.5 (0.9 – 2.3) Overall 357 5.8 (5.3 – 6.5) 150 2.5 (2.1 – 2.9) 92 1.6 (1.3 – 2.0)

↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


29

The proportion of respondents reporting frequency of dental visits by age groups is shown in Table 5.2 and Table 5.3 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. The following differences were observed:

• Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) living in the lowest and low quintiles areas were statistically significantly less likely to have visited a dentist in the previous two years. Those within the highest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to have visited a dentist in the previous two years.

• Respondents aged 15 years and under (n=1265) living in the middle quintile areas were statistically significantly more likely to have visited a dentist in the previous two years. Those within the highest quintile were a statistically significantly less likely to have visited a dentist less than two years ago.

Table 5.2: Frequency of dental visits by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

<2 years ago 2 or more years ago Dentures/ false teeth Never n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % Lowest quintile 512 61.1 (57.8 – 64.4) ↓ 227 27.0 (24.2 – 30.2) ↑ 97 11.6 (9.5 – 13.9) 2 0.2 # Low quintile 662 65.6 (62.6 – 68.5) ↓ 250 24.8 (22.2 – 27.5) ↑ 97 9.6 (7.9 – 11.6) - - Middle quintile 729 69.0 (66.1 – 71.7) 223 21.0 (18.7 – 23.6) 105 9.9 (8.2 – 11.8) - - High quintile 652 71.9 (68.9 – 74.7) 183 20.1 (17.7 – 22.9) 70 7.7 (6.1 – 9.6) 2 0.2 # Highest quintile 798 77.6 (75.1 – 80.2) ↑ 168 16.3 (14.2 – 18.7) ↓ 61 6.0 (4.6 – 7.5) - - Overall 3352 69.3 (68.0 – 70.6) 1049 21.7 (20.5 – 22.9) 431 8.9 (8.1 – 9.7) 4 0.1 #

Table 5.3: Frequency of dental visits by SEIFA IRSD, 0 to 15 years

<2 years ago 2 or more years ago Never n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 148 93.2 (89.0 – 96.7) 6 3.9 (7.6 – 7.7) 4 2.8 # Low quintile 154 92.6 (88.0 – 96.0) 9 5.2 (2.7 – 9.7) 3 1.9 # Middle quintile 157 97.9 (94.1 – 99.2) ↑ - - 3 2.1 # High quintile 201 96.9 (93.4 – 98.5) 3 1.2 # 2 0.9 # Highest quintile 182 90.7 (86.4 – 94.4) ↓ 9 4.5 (2.2 – 8.1) 8 4.1 (1.9 – 7.5) Overall 842 94.3 (92.6 – 95.7) 26 3.0 (2.0 – 4.2) 21 2.4 (1.5 – 3.5) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. # Insufficient numbers for statistical analysis Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


30

CHAPTER 6: CO-MORBIDITY, INJURY, DISABILITY This section reports on the prevalence of diabetes; current confirmed asthma; other respiratory problems (bronchitis, emphysema, chronic lung disease); cardio-vascular disease; arthritis; and osteoporosis. This section also reports on the prevalence of disability (i.e. limitation on activities due to impairment or health problem), as well as the prevalence of injury from falls in the last 12 months.

6.1 Diabetes

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor that they had diabetes. Overall, 5.9% (95% CI 5.3 – 6.6; n=285) of the respondents reported having been told they had diabetes. The proportion of respondents who reported that they have diabetes is shown in Table 6.1 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. The prevalence of diabetes was statistically significantly higher among people living in the lowest quintile (8.5%).

Table 6.1: Prevalence of Diabetes by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 71 8.5 (6.7 – 10.5) ↑ Low quintile 65 6.4 (5.0 – 8.1) Middle quintile 53 5.0 (3.8 – 6.5) High quintile 44 4.9 (3.6 – 6.4) Highest quintile 52 5.1 (3.8 – 6.5) Overall 285 5.9 (5.3 – 6.6)


Co-morbidity, injury, disability

32

6.2 Asthma

Asthma was determined if respondents (aged two years and over, n=5957) had ever been told by a doctor that they had asthma, and had experienced symptoms (wheeze, shortness of breath or chest tightness) of asthma in the last 12 months or had taken treatment for asthma in the last 12 months7. Overall, 17.9% (95% CI 15.7 – 20.2; n=200) of the respondents aged 0 to 15 years reported having current confirmed asthma, and 13.9% (95% CI 12.9 – 14.9; n=671) of the respondents aged 16 and over reported having current confirmed asthma. As children and adults differ in regards to having asthma, Table 6.2 highlights the prevalence of current confirmed asthma in respondents aged 2 to 15 years (n=1118) and respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting confirmed current confirmed asthma between the quintiles for either age group.

Table 6.2: Prevalence of current confirmed asthma by SEIFA IRSD, 2 years and over

2 to 15 years 16 years and over n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 42 22.0 (16.5 – 28.3) 134 16.0 (13.6 – 18.6) Low quintile 44 19.2 (14.5 – 24.7) 126 12.5 (10.5 – 14.6) Middle quintile 32 15.0 (9.4 – 18.0) 148 14.0 (12.0 – 16.2) High quintile 39 15.9 (11.7 – 20.9) 116 12.8 (10.7 – 15.1) Highest quintile 43 18.1 (13.6 – 23.3) 147 14.3 (12.3 – 16.5) Overall 200 17.9 (15.7 – 20.2) 671 13.9 (12.9 – 14.9)



33

6.3 Respiratory Problems

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor that they have any other respiratory problems such as bronchitis, emphysema, or chronic lung disease that has lasted six months or more. Overall, 5.2% (95% CI 4.7 – 5.8; n=250) of the respondents reported having been told they have other respiratory problems lasting six months or more. The proportion of respondents who reported that they have other respiratory problems is shown in Table 6.3 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting respiratory problems between the quintiles.

Table 6.3: Prevalence of other respiratory problems (bronchitis, emphysema, chronic lung disease) that has lasted six months or more by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 57 6.8 (5.2 – 8.7) Low quintile 52 5.2 (3.9 – 6.7) Middle quintile 50 4.7 (3.6 – 6.1) High quintile 43 4.7 (3.5 – 6.3) Highest quintile 48 4.7 (3.5 – 6.1) Overall 250 5.2 (4.7 – 5.8)



34

6.4 Cardiovascular Disease

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor that they have had any cardiovascular problems such as heart attack, angina, heart disease or stroke. Overall, 7.8% (95% CI 7.1 – 8.6; n= 378) of the respondents reported having been told that they have had some form of cardiovascular disease. The proportion of respondents who reported having cardiovascular disease is shown in Table 6.4 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting ever having cardiovascular disease between the quintiles.

Table 6.4: Prevalence of Cardiovascular Disease by SEIFA IRSD, 16 year and over




35

6.5 Arthritis

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor that they had arthritis. This included osteoarthritis, rheumatoid arthritis, juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA), or any other type of arthritis. Overall, 21.3% (95% CI 20.2 – 22.5; n=1032) of respondents reported having been told they have arthritis. The proportion of respondents who reported that they had been told they had arthritis is shown in Table 6.5 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. The respondents living in the lowest (25.2%) and the middle (24.6%) quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to report arthritis. The people living in the high quintile were statistically significantly less likely to report arthritis (17.8%).

Table 6.5: Prevalence of arthritis by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 211 25.2 (22.3 – 28.2) ↑ Low quintile 208 20.6 (18.2 – 23.2) Middle quintile 260 24.6 (22.1 – 27.3) ↑ High quintile 162 17.8 (15.5 – 20.4) ↓ Highest quintile 191 18.6 (16.3 – 21.0) Overall 1032 21.3 (20.2 – 22.5)



36

6.6 Osteoporosis

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) were asked if they had ever been told by a doctor that they had osteoporosis. Overall, 3.2% (95% CI 2.8 – 3.8; n=156) of respondents reported having been told they have osteoporosis. The proportion of respondents who said that they had been told they had osteoporosis is shown in Table 6.6 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting osteoporosis between the quintiles. Table 6.6: Prevalence of osteoporosis by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over




37

6.7 Disability

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4840) were asked if they were limited in any way in any activities because of any impairment or health problem. Overall, 20.2% (95% CI 19.1 – 21.3; n=976) of respondents reported having some kind of disability. The proportion of respondents who reported some kind of disability is shown in Table 6.7 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. People in the low quintile (23.0%) were statistically significantly more likely to report a disability.

Table 6.7: Prevalence of disability (i.e. limitation in activities due to impairment or health problem) by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 190 22.7 (19.9 – 25.6) Low quintile 232 23.0 (20.5 – 25.7) ↑ Middle quintile 209 19.8 (17.4 – 22.2) High quintile 162 17.9 (15.5 – 20.5) Highest quintile 183 17.8 (15.6 – 20.2) Overall 976 20.2 (19.1 – 21.3)



38

6.8 Injury

Respondents aged 65 years and over (n=880) were asked how many falls (including slips, trips and falls to the ground) they had in the past year. Overall, 35.5% (95% CI 32.4 – 38.7; n=313) of respondents reported falling at least once in the past year. The proportion of respondents who said they fell at least once is shown in Table 6.8 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting a fall between the quintiles. Table 6.8: Prevalence of injury (falls) in the past 12 months by SEIFA IRSD, 65 years and over



CHAPTER 7: HEALTH RELATED RISK FACTORS This section of the report covers the following health related risk factors: • high blood pressure; • high cholesterol; • body mass index (BMI) – underweight, normal, overweight and obese; • sunburn; • smoking; • alcohol; • nutrition; and • physical activity;

7.1 High Blood Pressure

Respondents aged 20 to 64 years (n=3625) were asked a series of questions related to blood pressure. Overall, 21.0% (95% CI 19.7 – 22.3, n=760) of the respondents reported ever having high blood pressure. The proportion of respondents who reported having high blood pressure is shown in Table 7.1 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting high blood pressure between the quintiles.

Table 7.1: Prevalence of high blood pressure by SEIFA IRSD, 20-64 years n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 142 22.9 (19.7 – 26.3) Low quintile 156 19.9 (17.2 – 22.8) Middle quintile 163 21.3 (18.5 – 24.3) High quintile 161 22.8 (19.8 – 26.0) Highest quintile 138 18.4 (15.7 – 21.3) Overall 760 21.0 (19.7 – 22.3)


Health related risk factors

40

7.2 High Cholesterol

Respondents aged 20 to 64 years (n=3625) were asked a series of questions related to cholesterol. Overall, 19.3% (95% CI 18 – 20.6, n=699) of the respondents reported ever having high cholesterol. The proportion of respondents who reported having high cholesterol is shown in Table 7.2 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting high cholesterol between the quintiles.

Table 7.2: Prevalence of high cholesterol by SEIFA IRSD, 20 to 64 years




41

7.3 Body mass index (BMI)

Respondents aged 18 years and over (n=4839) were asked to report their height and weight. These measurements were then used to calculate body mass index (BMI). The formula for the calculation of BMI, according to World Health Organisation (WHO) criteria shown in Table 7.3, is as follows8:

weight (kg) / height (m)2

Table 7.3: WHO BMI Criteria

Descriptive term BMI

Underweight <18.5

Normal weight 18.5 – 24.9

Overweight 25.0 – 29.9 Obese 30.0 +

The proportion of respondents who are classified as underweight or normal according to the BMI classification is shown in Table 7.4 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Overall, 2.8% (95% CI 2.3 – 3.3; n=127) were underweight and 44.0% (95% CI 42.6 – 45.5; n=1996) were classified as being of normal weight. There were no statistically significant differences in the underweight category between the quintiles. Respondents living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to be classified in the normal range, while those in the low quintile were statistically significantly less likely to be classified in the normal range.

Table 7.4: Self reported BMI, underweight and normal, by SEIFA IRSD, 18 years and over

Underweight Normal range n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 19 2.5 (1.6 – 3.8) 335 44.0 (40.5 – 47.5) Low quintile 29 3.1 (2.1 – 4.3) 373 39.6 (36.5 – 42.7) ↓ Middle quintile 24 2.4 (1.6 – 3.5) 431 43.5 (40.4 – 46.6) High quintile 21 2.4 (1.5 – 3.6) 377 43.2 (39.9 – 46.5) Highest quintile 34 3.5 (2.5 – 4.8) 480 49.6 (46.5 – 52.8) ↑ Overall 127 2.8 (2.3 – 3.3) 1996 44.0 (42.6 – 45.5) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


42

The proportion of respondents who were classified as being overweight or obese according to the BMI classification is shown in Table 7.5 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Overall, 34.7% (95% CI 33.4 – 36.1, n=1575) of the respondents were classified as being overweight and 18.5% (95% CI 17.3 – 19.6; n=837) as obese. Respondents living in the low quintile were statistically significantly less likely to be classified as overweight while those in the high quintile were more likely to be classified as overweight. Respondents living in the lowest and low quintiles were more likely to be classified as obese while those living in the high and highest quintiles were less likely to be classified as obese.

Table 7.5: Self reported BMI, overweight and obese, by SEIFA IRSD, 18 years and over

Overweight Obese n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 226 29.7 (26.5 – 33.0) ↓ 182 23.9 (21.0 – 27.0) ↑ Low quintile 321 34.1 (31.1 – 37.2) 219 23.2 (20.6 – 26.0) ↑ Middle quintile 362 36.5 (33.6 – 39.6) 174 17.6 (15.3 – 20.0) High quintile 340 38.9 (35.8 – 42.2) ↑ 135 15.5 (13.2 – 18.0) ↓ Highest quintile 326 33.7 (30.8 – 36.7) 127 13.1 (11.1 – 15.4) ↓ Overall 1575 34.7 (33.4 – 36.1) 837 18.5 (17.3 – 19.6) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


43

7.4 Smoking

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) were asked a series of questions related smoking. Overall, 20.6% (95% CI 19.5 – 21.7, n=996) of the respondents reported being current smokers. The proportion of respondents who reported being current smokers is shown in Table 7.6 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. The respondents living in the lowest and low quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to be current smokers, and those living in the highest quintile were less likely to be current smokers.

Table 7.6: Prevalence of current smokers by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 223 26.6 (23.7 – 29.7) ↑ Low quintile 247 24.5 (21.9 – 27.2) ↑ Middle quintile 190 18.0 (15.7 – 20.4) High quintile 186 20.5 (18.0 – 23.2) Highest quintile 150 14.6 (12.5 – 16.9) ↓ Overall 996 20.6 (19.5 – 21.7)



44

7.5 Alcohol risk

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839) were asked a series of questions related to alcohol consumption. These data were then used to calculate the risk of harm from alcohol in the short and long term. The calculations were made based on an Australian Standard Drink and according to the NH&MRC guidelines9 and the World Health Organisation’s International Guide for Monitoring Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm10, which calculates risk in terms of alcohol consumption11,12. Table 7.7 provides a summary of these new guidelines for short and long term risk.

Table 7.7: For risk of harm from alcohol in the short and long term

Number of standard drinks Low Risk Risky High Risk

SHORT TERM HARM MALES On any one day Up to 6 7 to 10 11 or more FEMALES On any one day Up to 4 5 to 6 7 or more

LONG TERM HARM MALES On an average day Up to 4 per day. 5 to 6 per day. 7 or more per day. Overall weekly level Up to 28 per week. 29 to 42 per week. 43 or more per week. FEMALES On an average day Up to 2 per day. 3 to 4 per day. 5 or more per day. Overall weekly level Up to 14 per week. 15 to 28 per week. 29 or more per week.

Overall, 8.7% (95% CI 8.0 – 9.6; n=4412) of the respondents were classified to be at risk (risky & high risk) of harm from alcohol in the short term and 23.4% (95% CI 22.2 – 24.6; n=1129) of the respondents were classified to be at risk (risky & high risk) of harm from alcohol in the long term. The proportion of respondents who were at risk of harm (risky & high risk) from alcohol in both the short term and long term is shown in Table 7.8 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles.


45

Respondents living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to be at risk of harm (risky & high risk) from alcohol in the short term; and those living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to be at risk of harm (risky & high risk) from alcohol in the short and long term.

Table 7.8: Risk of harm (risky & high risk) from alcohol in the short and long term by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over Short term alcohol risk Long term alcohol risk n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 105 12.6 (10.4 – 15.1) ↑ 220 26.3 (23.4 – 29.4) Low quintile 93 9.2 (7.5 – 11.2) 247 24.5 (21.9 – 27.2) Middle quintile 85 8.0 (6.5 – 9.9) 252 23.9 (21.4 – 26.5) High quintile 81 8.9 (7.2 – 11.0) 212 23.4 (20.7 – 26.2) Highest quintile 59 5.8 (4.4 – 7.4) ↓ 198 19.3 (17.0 – 21.8) ↓ Overall 422 8.7 (8.0 – 9.6) 1129 23.4 (22.2 – 24.6) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


46

7.6 Sunburn

Respondents of all ages (n=6104) were asked if they had been sunburned in the last 12 months (even just nose or shoulders). The proportion of respondents who reported being sunburned at least once in the last twelve months is shown in Table 7.9 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Overall, 48.7% (95% CI 45.9 – 51.6 n=578) of the respondents aged 0 to 15 years reported getting sunburned and 49.9% (95% CI 48.5 – 51.3 n=2416) of respondents aged 16 years and over reported getting sunburned in the last 12 months. Respondents, aged 16 years and over, living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to report being sunburned in the last 12 months.

Table 7.9: Prevalence of self- reported sunburn by SEIFA IRSD

0 to15 years 16 years and over n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 92 46.0 (39.2 – 52.9) 386 46.1 (42.7 – 49.4) ↓ Low quintile 122 49.5 (43.2 – 55.6) 515 51.0 (48.0 – 54.1) Middle quintile 117 49.8 (43.4 – 56.2) 540 51.1 (48.1 – 54.1) High quintile 114 43.6 (37.9 – 49.9) 456 50.3 (47.0 – 53.5) Highest quintile 133 54.6 (48.2 – 60.7) 520 50.6 (47.6 – 53.7) Overall 578 48.7 (45.9 – 51.6) 2416 49.9 (48.5 – 51.3) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


47

7.7 Nutrition

A series of short questions were asked regarding the consumption of foods that contribute to nutrient intake (vegetables, fruit, bread, cereals and cereal products) and the consumption of foods that contribute to the intake of fat and saturated fat (milk and meat products such as sausages)13.

7.7.1 Vegetable Consumption

Respondents aged four years and over (n=6312) were asked how many serves of vegetables they eat a day. Table 7.10 shows the NH&MRC guidelines1415 for recommended daily intake of vegetables, according to age.

Table 7.10: NH&MRC guidelines for daily vegetable intake, by age group

4 – 7 years 2 or more serves per day



16 years and over 5 or more serves per day

The proportion of respondents who reported eating vegetables is grouped according to indicators for their age and shown in Table 7.11 through Table 7.14, by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Overall, 50.3% (95% CI 45.1 – 55.8; n=176) of respondents, age 4 to 7 years, reported eating less than two serves of vegetables per day and 47.7% (95% CI 42.2 – 52.9; n=166) reported eating two or more serves per day. Respondents age 4 to 7 years living in the high quintile were statistically significantly more likely to eat two or more serves of vegetables per day and less likely to eat less than two serves of vegetables per day. While respondents living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to eat less than two serves of vegetables per day and less likely to eat two or more serves of vegetables per day.


48

Table 7.11: Serves of vegetables eaten per day by SEIFA ISRD, 4 to 7 years <2 serves of vegetables per day 2 or more serves of vegetables per day n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI)

Lowest quintile 42 62.1 (49.1 - 73.0) ↑ 25 36.3 (25.6 - 49.4) ↓ Low quintile 37 51.6 (40.0 - 64.0) 30 41.8 (30.8 - 54.5) Middle quintile 30 44.5 (32.3 - 56.6) 37 55.5 (41.9 - 66.4) High quintile 25 35.4 (25.3 - 48.8) ↓ 45 64.6 (52.7 - 76.0) ↑ Highest quintile 42 57.7 (45.4 - 68.8) 30 40.8 (29.9 - 53.2) Overall 176 50.3 (45.1 - 55.8) 166 47.7 (42.2 - 52.9)


Overall, 76.9% (95% CI 72.2 – 81.1; n=277) of respondents, 8 to 11 years, reported that they ate less than three serves of vegetables per day and 21.0% (95% CI 17.1 – 25.8; n=76) reported eating three or more serves of vegetable per day. Respondents age 8 to 11 years living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to eat three or more serves of vegetables per day and were statistically significantly less likely to eat less than three serves of vegetables per day.

Table 7.12: Serves of vegetables eaten per day by SEIFA ISRD, 8 to 11 years <3 serves of vegetables per day 3 or more serves of vegetables per day

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI)

Lowest quintile 43 72.3 (58.4 - 82.2) 13 22.2 (12.5 - 34.5) Low quintile 45 78.5 (65.8 - 88.2) 8 14.5 (6.7 - 26.3) Middle quintile 50 85.7 (74.1 - 93.4) 8 14.3 (6.6 - 25.9) High quintile 74 81.0 (70.6 - 87.7) 17 19.0 (11.4 - 28.2) Highest quintile 65 69.5 (59.4 - 78.7) ↓ 28 30.5 (21.3 - 40.6) ↑

Overall 277 76.9 (72.2 - 81.1) 76 21.0 (17.1 - 25.8) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

Overall, 83.2% (95% CI 78.5 – 86.7; n=283) of respondents, 12 to 15 years, reported that they ate less than four serves of vegetables per day and 14.7% (95% CI 11.2 – 19.0; n=50) reported that they ate four or more serves of vegetables per day. Respondents, age 12 to 15 years living in the lowest (25.0%) and middle (23.3%) quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to eat four or more serves of vegetables per day. Respondents, 12 to 15 years, living in the lowest (70.2%) and middle (73.6%) quintiles were statistically significantly less likely to eat less than a four serves of vegetables per day while respondents living in the high (91.0%) and the highest (94.6%) quintile were statistically significantly more likely to eat less than four serves of vegetables per day.


49

Table 7.13: Serves of vegetables eaten per day by SEIFA ISRD, 12 to 15 years

<4 serves of vegetables per day 4 or more serves of vegetables per day n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 47 70.2 (57.6 - 80.4) ↓ 17 25.0 (15.9 - 37.7) ↑ Low quintile 58 84.6 (72.8 - 91.4) 9 13.3 (6.5 - 23.8) Middle quintile 45 73.6 (59.6 - 82.8) ↓ 14 23.3 (13.3 - 35.3) ↑ High quintile 69 91.0 (81.4 - 95.9) ↑ 6 8.2 (3.3 - 17.0) Highest quintile 64 94.6 (86.6 - 98.8) ↑ 4 5.4 - Overall 283 83.2 (78.5 - 86.7) 50 14.7 (11.2 - 19.0)


Overall, 26.7% (95% CI 25.5 – 28.0; n=1400) of respondents, 16 years and over, reported that they ate less than two serves of vegetables per day, 66.0% (95% CI 64.7 – 67.2; n=3454) reported that they ate two to four serves of vegetables per day and 6.8% (95% CI 6.1 – 7.5; n=356) reported that they ate five or more serves of vegetables per day. There were no statistically significant differences observed with vegetable intake between the quintiles.

Table 7.14: Serves of vegetables eaten per day by SEIFA ISRD, 16 year and over <2 serves of

vegetables per day 2 to 4 serves of

vegetables per day 5 or more serves of vegetables per day

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI)

Lowest quintile 274 30.0 (27.0 - 33.1) 565 61.8 (58.6 - 65.0) 68 7.5 (5.9 - 9.4) Low quintile 293 27.1 (24.5 - 29.9) 721 66.7 (63.8 - 69.5) 63 5.8 (4.5 - 7.4) Middle quintile 300 26.4 (23.9 - 29.1) 755 66.5 (63.7 - 69.2) 76 6.7 (5.3 - 8.3) High quintile 261 26.5 (23.8 - 29.4) 651 66.1 (63.0 - 69.0) 70 7.1 (5.6 - 8.9) Highest quintile 272 24.3 (21.8 - 26.9) 762 68.0 (65.1 - 70.7) 77 6.9 (5.5 - 8.6) Overall 1,400 26.7 (25.5 - 28.0) 3,454 66.0 (64.7 - 67.2) 356 6.8 (6.1 - 7.5) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


50

7.7.2 Fruit Consumption

Respondents aged four years and over (n=6312) were asked how many serves of fruit they ate per day. The NH&MRC guidelines14,15 for the recommended daily intake of fruit, according to age, are shown in Table 7.15.

Table 7.15: NH&MRC guidelines for daily fruit intake, by age group

4 – 7 years 1 to 2 serves per day

8 – 11 years 1 to 2 serves per day


16 years and over 2 or more serves per day

The proportion of respondents who reported eating fruit is shown in Table 7.16 to Table 7.17, by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Overall, 9.9% (95% CI 8.2 – 11.9; n=104) of respondents, 4 to 15 years reported eating one serve or less of fruit per day, 69.2% (95% CI 66.3 – 72.0; n=727), reported eating one to two serves of fruit per day and 18.3% (95% CI 16.0 – 20.8; n=192) reported eating three or more serves of fruit per day. Respondents living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to consume one serve or less of fruit per day (14.0%) and less likely to consume three or more serves of fruit per day (11.9%). Respondents living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to consume three or more serves of fruit per day (26.8%) and statistically significantly less likely to consume one to two serves of fruit per day (63.0%). Respondents living in the high quintile (13.2%) were statistically significantly less likely to consume three or more serves of fruit per day. The proportion of respondents, 4 to 15 years, who reported eating fruit is shown in Table 7.16.


51

Table 7.16: Serves of fruit eaten per day by SEIFA ISRD, 4 - 15 years

1 serve or less 1 – 2 serves 3 or more serves

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 27 14.0 (9.5 - 19.7) ↑ 132 68.0 (60.6 - 74.1) 23 11.9 (7.8 - 17.4) ↓ Low quintile 20 10.2 (6.5 - 15.5) 143 72.4 (65.7 - 78.6) 32 16.4 (11.5 - 22.3) Middle quintile 13 7.0 (3.9 - 11.9) 127 67.8 (60.6 - 74.4) 43 22.9 (17.3 - 29.8) High quintile 22 9.2 (6.0 - 13.9) 177 74.8 (68.6 - 80.0) 31 13.2 (9.2 - 18.2) ↓

Highest quintile 22 9.3 (6.1 - 14.1) 147 63.0 (56.5 - 69.2) ↓ 63 26.8 (21.5 - 33.3) ↑

Overall 104 9.9 (8.2 - 11.9) 727 69.2 (66.3 - 72.0) 192 18.3 (16.0 - 20.8)


Overall, 51.9% (95% CI 50.6 – 53.3; n=2719) of respondents, 16 years and over reported eating one serve or less of fruit per day, 25.1% (95% CI 23.9 – 26.3; n=1315), reported eating two serves of fruit per day and 18.3% (95% CI 16.0 – 20.8; n=192) reported eating three or more serves of fruit per day. Respondents living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to consume two (29.0%) or three or more serves of fruit per day (19.7%) and less likely to consume one serve or less of fruit per day (51.9%). Respondents living in the low quintile (14.1%) were statistically significantly less likely to consume three or more serves of fruit per day and respondents living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to eat two serves of fruit per day. The proportion of respondents who reported eating fruit is shown in Table 7.17.

Table 7.17: Serves of fruit eaten per day by SEIFA ISRD, 16 years and over 1 serve or less 2 serves 3 or more serves

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 499 54.6 (51.3 - 57.9) 194 21.2 (18.6 - 24.1) ↓ 144 15.8 (13.5 - 18.3) Low quintile 576 53.3 (50.3 - 56.3) 279 25.8 (23.2 - 28.5) 152 14.1 (12.1 - 16.3) ↓ Middle quintile 611 53.8 (50.9 - 56.8) 282 24.8 (22.4 - 27.5) 185 16.3 (14.2 - 18.6) High quintile 507 51.5 (48.3 - 54.6) 235 23.9 (21.3 - 26.7) 173 17.6 (15.3 - 20.1) Highest quintile 526 46.9 (44.0 - 49.9) ↓ 325 29.0 (26.4 - 31.8) ↑ 221 19.7 (17.4 - 22.2) ↑ Overall 2,719 51.9 (50.6 - 53.3) 1,315 25.1 (23.9 - 26.3) 875 16.7 (15.7 - 17.8)



52

7.7.3 Potato consumption

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=2448)* were asked how often they ate potato chips, french fries, wedges, fried potatoes or crisps. Overall, 23.8% (95% CI 22.2 – 25.5; n=583) of the respondents reported rarely or never eating fried potatoes, french fries, wedges or crisps and 2.3% (95% CI 1.7 – 2.9; n=56) reported eating fired potato at least 5 times per week. The proportion of respondents who reported eating fried potatoes is shown in Table 7.18 by SEIFA IRSD. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting fried food consumption between the quintiles. Table 7.18: Frequency of fried potatoes or chips eaten weekly by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over Rarely/ never eat fried potato Eat fried potato

less than weekly n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 109 24.4 (20.6 – 28.6) 114 25.6 (21.7 – 29.8) Low quintile 117 22.6 (19.2 – 26.4) 143 27.7 (23.9 – 31.6) Middle quintile 133 24.9 (21.4 – 28.7) 133 24.9 (21.4 – 28.7) High quintile 101 22.7 (19.0 – 26.8) 106 23.9 (20.1 – 28.0) Highest quintile 123 24.3 (20.7 – 28.2) 154 30.4 (26.5 – 34.6) Overall 583 23.8 (22.2 – 25.5) 650 26.6 (24.8 – 28.3) Eat fried potato

1 to 4 times per week Eat fried potato

5 or more times per week n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 210 47.1 (42.5 – 51.7) 12 2.7 (1.5 – 4.5) Low quintile 247 47.8 (43.5 – 52.1) 10 1.9 (1.0 – 3.4) Middle quintile 258 48.3 (44.1 – 52.6) 10 1.9 (1.0 – 3.3) High quintile 224 50.5 (45.8 – 55.1) 13 2.9 (1.6 – 4.8) Highest quintile 218 43.1 (38.8 – 47.4) 11 2.2 (1.1 – 3.7) Overall 1157 47.3 (45.3 – 49.3) 56 2.3 (1.7 – 2.9) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined). Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

* This question was asked bi-monthly.


53

7.7.4 Carbohydrate consumption

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=2448)* were asked how often they ate bread, including bread rolls, flat breads, crumpets, bagels, English bread type muffins and cooked breakfast cereals. Overall, 2.6% (95% CI 2.0 – 3.3; n=63) of the respondents reported rarely or never eating bread and 14.0% (95% CI 12.7 – 15.4); n=343) consumed bread less than daily. The proportion of respondents who reported rarely or never eating bread is shown in Table 7.19 by SEIFA IRSD. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting daily bread consumption between the quintiles.

Table 7.19: Frequency of daily carbohydrate consumption: bread by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over Rarely/ never eat bread Eat bread less than daily Eat bread daily n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 13 2.9 (1.6 – 4.8) 58 13.0 (10.1 – 16.4) 375 84.1 (80.5 – 87.3) Low quintile 12 2.3 (1.3 – 3.9) 69 13.3 (10.6 – 16.5) 436 84.2 (80.8 – 87.1) Middle quintile 14 2.6 (1.5 – 4.2) 74 13.8 (11.1 – 17.0) 447 83.6 (80.2 – 86.5) High quintile 13 2.9 (1.6 – 4.8) 62 14.0 (11.0 – 17.4) 369 83.1 (79.4 – 86.4) Highest quintile 11 2.2 (1.2 – 3.8) 80 15.8 (12.9 – 19.2) 414 82.0 (78.4 – 85.2) Overall 63 2.6 (2.0 – 3.3) 343 14.0 (12.7 – 15.4) 2041 83.4 (81.9 – 84.8) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined). Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=2448)* were also asked how often they ate breakfast cereal. Overall, 30.0% (95% CI 28.2 – 31.8; n=735) of the respondents reported rarely or never eating breakfast cereal and 26.8% (95% CI 25.1 – 28.6; n=657) reported eating cereal less than daily. The proportion of respondents who reported daily cereal consumption is shown in Table 7.20 by SEIFA IRSD. Respondents living in the middle quintile were statistically significantly less likely to rarely or never eat cereal.



54

Table 7.20: Frequency of daily carbohydrate consumption: breakfast cereal by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over Rarely/ never eat cereal Eat cereal less than daily Eat cereal daily n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 151 33.8 (29.5 – 38.3) 106 23.7 (19.9 – 27.8) 189 42.3 (37.8 – 46.9) Low quintile 177 34.1 (30.1 – 38.3) 132 25.4 (21.8 – 29.3) 210 40.5 (36.3 – 44.7) Middle quintile 134 25.0 (21.5 – 28.9) ↓ 158 29.5 (25.8 – 33.5) 243 45.4 (41.2 – 49.7) High quintile 128 28.8 (24.8 – 33.2) 134 30.2 (26.0 – 34.6) 181 40.8 (36.3 – 45.4) Highest quintile 145 28.7 (24.9 – 32.8) 127 25.1 (21.5 – 29.1) 233 46.1 (41.8 – 50.5) Overall 735 30.0 (28.2 – 31.8) 657 26.8 (25.1 – 28.6) 1056 43.1 (41.1 – 45.1) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined). Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

Respondents aged 16 years (2448)* and over were also asked how often they ate pasta, rice, noodles or other cereals (not including cooked breakfast cereal). Overall, 6.4% (95% CI 5.5 – 7.4; n=157) reported rarely or never eating pasta, rice and noodles. The proportion of respondents who reported daily pasta, rice and noodles consumption is shown in Table 7.21 by SEIFA IRSD. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents reporting pasta, rice or noodles consumption between the quintiles.

Table 7.21: Frequency of daily carbohydrate consumption: pasta, rice or noodles by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

Rarely/ never eat pasta, rice or noodles

Eat pasta, rice or noodles less than daily

Eat pasta, rice or noodles daily

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 34 7.6 (5.4 – 10.4) 380 85.2 (81.7 – 88.3) 32 7.2 (5.0 – 9.9) Low quintile 32 6.2 (4.3 – 8.5) 442 85.2 (81.9 – 88.0) 44 8.5 (6.3 – 11.1) Middle quintile 33 6.2 (4.4 – 8.5) 473 88.4 (85.5 – 90.0) 29 5.4 (3.7 – 7.6) High quintile 31 7.0 (4.9 – 9.6) 383 86.3 (82.8 – 89.2) 30 6.8 (4.7 – 9.4) Highest quintile 27 5.3 (3.6 – 7.6) 436 86.3 (83.1 – 89.1) 42 8.3 (6.1 – 11.0) Overall 157 6.4 (5.5 – 7.4) 2114 86.3 (84.9 – 87.6) 177 7.2 (6.3 – 8.3) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003



55

7.7.5 Dairy consumption

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=2448)* were asked what type of milk they usually consumed. The proportion of respondents who reported consuming whole milk and low or reduced fat or skim milk is shown in Table 7.22 by SEIFA IRSD. Overall, 35.1% (95% CI 33.8 – 36.5; n=1700) reported that they usually consumed whole milk. Respondents living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to report consuming whole milk while those living in the highest and high quintiles were statistically significantly less likely to report consuming whole milk. Overall, 54.0% (95% CI 52.6 – 55.4; n=2612) reported that they usually consumed low or reduced fat or skim milk. Respondents living in the highest and high quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to report consuming low or reduced fat or skim milk.

Table 7.22: Types of milk usually consumed by SEIFA IRSD, age 16 years and over Whole milk Fat reduced

(low/ reduced fat or skim) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI)

Lowest quintile 342 40.9 (37.5 – 44.2) ↑ 425 50.8 (47.3 – 54.1) Low quintile 387 38.3 (35.4 – 41.4) 517 51.2 (48.2 – 54.3) Middle quintile 395 37.4 (34.5 – 40.3) 539 51.0 (48.0 – 54.0) High quintile 284 31.3 (28.4 – 34.4) ↓ 535 59.0 (55.8 – 62.2) ↑ Highest quintile 292 28.5 (25.7 – 31.3) ↓ 596 58.0 (55.0 – 61.0) ↑ Overall 1700 35.1 (33.8 – 36.5) 2612 54.0 (52.6 – 55.4)




56

7.8 Physical Activity

A number of short questions were asked to monitor physical activity, adopted from the Active Australia Survey16. These questions included walking, moderate activity and vigorous activity, the number of times per week that these activities had been undertaken, and the time spent doing these activities.

The Active Australia Physical Activity questions enable the calculation of Sufficient Physical Activity as defined by the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Sufficient Physical Activity (SPA) has been defined as “the completion of 150 minutes of walking, moderate or vigorous physical activity (when vigorous is weighted by a factor of two to account for its greater intensity) in the past week, accrued in at least five separate sessions”.17 Not all people undertake sufficient physical activity, but are still physically active to some extent, just not to levels which benefit their health, defined as Insufficient Physical Activity (IPA). People who do not undertake physical activity, defined as 'no walking, moderate or vigorous activity' undertaken in at least five sessions in the past week, are classified as inactive.

The proportion of respondents classified as undertaking sufficient physical activity or none or insufficient activity is shown in Table 7.23 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles.

Overall, 54.5% (95%CI 53.0 – 56.1; n=2148) reported a level of activity determined to be sufficient physical activity according to the above criteria. Respondents living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to participate in sufficient physical activity while those living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to participate in sufficient physical activity.

Table 7.23: Physical Activity by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

Sufficient physical activity No activity/activity but not sufficient

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 296 47.9 (43.9 - 51.9) ↓ 322 52.1 (48.1 - 56.1) ↑ Low quintile 399 51.4 (47.8 - 54.9) 378 48.6 (45.1 - 52.2) Middle quintile 392 51.6 (48.0 - 55.2) 368 48.4 (44.8 - 52.0) High quintile 387 54.9 (51.1 - 58.5) 318 45.1 (41.3 - 48.8) Highest quintile 440 59.0 (55.3 - 62.5) ↑ 306 41.0 (37.5 - 44.6) ↓

Overall 1,914 53.1 (51.4 - 54.7) 1,692 46.9 (45.3 - 48.6)

↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined). Note: 38 cases missing Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding.

CHAPTER 8: MENTAL HEALTH To ascertain mental health status respondents were asked a series of questions relating to the following or using the following measures: • Current self-reported diagnosed mental health condition (16+ years); • Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) (16+ years); • Suicidal ideation (16+ years); and • Emotions, behaviour, social ability (2-15 years).

8.1 Prevalence of current self-reported diagnosed mental health condition

Current diagnosed mental health condition was determined if the respondent, aged 16 years and over (n=4839): • was diagnosed with a mental health condition such as anxiety, depression, a stress

related problem, or any other mental health problem in the last 12 months; or • currently receiving treatment for a mental health condition. Overall, 13.5% (95% CI 12.6 – 14.5; n=654) of the respondents had a current diagnosed mental health condition. The proportion of respondents who reported having a current diagnosed mental health condition is shown in Table 8.1 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents who reported having current diagnosed mental health condition between the quintiles.

Table 8.1: Current self-reported diagnosed mental health condition by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over


↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

Mental health issues

58

8.2 Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10)

The level of psychological distress of respondents aged 16 years and over (n=2396) was determined using the Kessler Psychological Distress 10 item scale (K10)18,19,20. This scale was developed to measure anxiety and depressive disorders on a general population. Overall 10.9% (95% CI 9.7 – 12.2; n=262) of the respondents were determined to have psychological distress. The proportion of respondents who had psychological distress as determined by the K10 is shown in Table 8.2 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences between the quintiles in the proportion of respondents with psychological distress as defined by K10.

Table 8.2: Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 45 11.4 (8.5 – 14.8) Low quintile 55 11.8 (9.1 –15.0) Middle quintile 66 12.6 (10.0 – 15.6) High quintile 52 11.0 (8.4 – 14.1) Highest quintile 44 8.2 (6.1 – 10.7) Overall 262 10.9 (9.7 – 12.2)



59

8.3 Suicidal ideation

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=2390)* were asked a series of questions relating to suicidal ideation. Suicidal ideation was determined based on four questions contained in the 28 item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-28)21,22,23. Overall 6.0% (95% CI 5.1 – 7.0; n=144) of the respondents experienced suicidal ideation. The proportion of respondents who had experienced suicidal ideation is shown in Table 8.3 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents having suicidal ideation between the quintiles.

Table 8.3: Suicidal Ideation by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over





60

8.4 Child mental health problems

Parents or caregivers of children aged 2 to 15 years (n=1111) were asked if, in their opinion, their child had trouble with emotions, concentration, behaviour or getting on with people. Overall, 8.4% (95% CI 6.9 – 10.1; n=93) of the respondents reported their child as having quite a lot or very much trouble with emotions, concentration, behaviour, or getting on with people. The proportion of respondents who reported their child as having problems is shown in Table 8.4 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Respondents living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to report their child as having quite a lot or very much trouble with emotions, concentration, behaviour, or getting on with people (17.3%), while people living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to report their child as having quite a lot or very much trouble with emotions, concentration, behaviour, or getting on with people (2.5%).

Table 8.4: Child is having very much or quite a lot of trouble with emotions, concentration, behaviour or getting on with people by SEIFA IRSD, 2 to 15 years

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 33 17.3 (12.4 – 23.1) ↑ Low quintile 18 7.8 (4.9 – 11.9) Middle quintile 15 7.0 (4.2 – 11.0) High quintile 21 8.8 (5.7 – 13.0) Highest quintile 6 2.5 (1.0 – 5.2) ↓ Overall 93 8.4 (6.9 – 10.1)



61

8.5 Child mental health treatment

Parents or caregivers of children aged 2 to 15 years (n=1111) were asked whether the child had ever been treated for an emotional, mental health or behavioural problem. Overall, 8.0% (95% CI 6.5 – 9.7; n=89) of the respondents reported their child as having been treated for an emotional, mental health or behavioural problem. The proportion of respondents who reported their child as having been treated for problems is shown in Table 8.5 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Parents or carers of children living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly more likely to report their child as having been treated for an emotional, mental health or behavioural problem (15.2%), while children living in the highest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to report their child as having been treated for an emotional, mental health or behavioural problem (3.0%).

Table 8.5: Child is having treatment for an emotional, mental health or behavioural problem by SEIFA IRSD, 2 to 15 years

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 29 15.2 (10.6 – 20.8) ↑ Low quintile 18 7.8 (4.9 – 11.9) Middle quintile 12 5.6 (3.1 – 9.3) High quintile 23 9.7 (6.4 – 13.9) Highest quintile 7 3.0 (1.3 – 5.8) ↓ Overall 89 8.0 (6.5 – 9.7)



62

CHAPTER 9: PSYCHOSOCIAL EVENTS This section reports on the respondent’s experience of major psychosocial events in the last 12 months (n=2390)* such as unplanned loss of job; new job; family or domestic violence; death of someone close; discrimination; moving house; robbery; marriage or relationship breakdown; serious injury; serious illness and any other major events in Table 9.1 to Table 9.4 by SEIFA IRSD. The following statistically significant differences were observed: • The lowest quintile had a statistically significantly higher proportion of

respondents reporting an unplanned loss of job; • Respondents living in the low and highest quintiles were statistically significantly

more likely to report new jobs while those living in the lowest and high quintiles were statistically significantly less likely to report new jobs;

• Respondents living in the low and high quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to report family or domestic violence;

• Respondents living in the highest quintile areas were statistically significantly more likely to report being robbed or home burgled; and

• Those living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to report other major psychosocial events.

Table 9.1: Psychosocial events: unplanned loss of job, new job, family or domestic violence by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over Unplanned loss of job New job Family or domestic

violence n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 31 7.8 (5.5 - 11.2) ↑ 30 7.7 (5.3 - 10.9) ↓ 7 1.7 (0.8 - 3.8) Low quintile 23 4.8 (3.1 - 7.1) 71 14.4 (11.5 - 18.0) ↑ 14 2.9 (1.6 - 4.9) ↑ Middle quintile 28 5.4 (3.7 - 7.7) 54 10.3 (7.9 - 13.3) 5 0.9 (0.4 - 2.3) High quintile 21 4.6 (2.9 - 7.0 40 8.6 (6.3 - 11.7) ↓ 13 2.8 (1.6 - 4.9) ↑ Highest quintile 32 6.1 (4.3 - 8.7) 89 17.1 (14.0 - 20.7) ↑ 3 # Overall 135 5.7 (4.8 - 6.7) 283 11.8 (10.6 - 13.2) 42 1.8 (1.3 - 2.4) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. # Insufficient numbers for statistical analysis Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003


Psychosocial events

64

Table 9.2: Psychosocial events: death of somebody, discrimination, moving house by SEIFA IRSD, age 16 years and over Death of somebody close

to you Discrimination Moved house

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 91 23.2 (19.2 - 27.8) 11 2.7 (1.5 - 5.1) 28 7.1 (4.9 - 10.3) Low quintile 102 20.8 (17.3 - 24.7) 20 4.1 (2.6 - 6.3) 52 10.6 (8.1 - 13.7) Middle quintile 104 19.8 (16.6 - 23.6) 18 3.5 (2.1 - 5.5) 35 6.7 (4.8 - 9.3) High quintile 79 17.1 (13.8 - 20.9) 19 4.0 (2.6 - 6.4) 28 6.0 (4.1 - 8.7) Highest quintile 101 19.3 (16.1 - 23.1) 17 3.2 (2.0 - 5.3) 53 10.1 (7.8 - 13.2) Overall 477 19.9 (18.4 - 21.6) 84 3.5 (2.8 - 4.4) 196 8.2 (7.1 - 9.4)

Table 9.3: Psychosocial events: robbery, marriage or relationship breakdown, serious injury by SEIFA IRSD, age 16 years and over Robbed or home burgled Marriage or

relationship breakdown Serious injury

n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 13 3.4 (1.9 - 5.8) 23 6.0 (3.8 - 8.8) 9 2.3 (1.1 - 4.5) Low quintile 14 2.8 (1.6 - 4.9) 34 7.0 (4.9 - 9.6) 25 5.0 (3.4 - 7.5) Middle quintile 20 3.9 (2.4 - 5.9) 31 5.9 (4.1 - 8.4) 23 4.4 (2.9 - 6.6) High quintile 11 2.4 (1.3 - 4.3) 26 5.6 (3.8 - 8.2) 10 2.1 (1.1 - 4.1) Highest quintile 36 7.0 (5.0 - 9.5) ↑ 32 6.1 (4.3 - 8.7) 17 3.2 (2.0 - 5.3) Overall 95 4.0 (3.2 - 4.9) 147 6.1 (5.2 - 7.2) 83 3.5 (2.8 - 4.3)

Table 9.4: Psychosocial events: serious illness and any other major events by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over Serious illness Any other major events n % (95% CI) n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 36 9.0 (6.6 - 12.6) 33 8.4 (6.0 - 11.8) ↓ Low quintile 36 7.2 (5.3 - 10.1) 66 13.5 (10.6 - 16.9) Middle quintile 50 9.6 (7.2 - 12.5) 75 14.3 (11.5 - 17.7) High quintile 52 11.2 (8.6 - 14.6) 55 11.9 (9.1 - 15.3) Highest quintile 43 8.2 (6.1 - 11.0) 69 13.1 (10.5 - 16.5) Overall 217 9.0 (8.0 - 10.3) 298 12.5 (11.2 - 13.9) ↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined. Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. # Insufficient numbers for statistical analysis Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

CHAPTER 10: SOCIAL CAPITAL Respondents were asked a series of questions relating to their personal and environmental safety, trust and locus of control.

10.1 Neighbourhood Safety

Respondents (n=3655)* were asked whether they felt that overall their neighbourhood was a safe place to live. Overall, 89.1% (95% CI 88.0 – 90.0; n=3256) of respondents thought their neighbourhood was a safe place to live. The proportion of respondents who reported their neighbourhood as a safe place to live is shown in Table 10.1 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. The respondents in the highest, high, and middle quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to report that their neighbourhood was a safe place to live while those in the lowest and low quintile were statistically significantly less likely to report that their neighbourhood was a safe place to live.

Table 10.1: Respondents who reported their neighborhood as safe by SEIFA IRSD, all ages

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 487 80.6 (77.3 – 83.6) ↓ Low quintile 637 84.3 (81.5 – 86.7) ↓ Middle quintile 711 92.7 (90.7 – 94.4) ↑ High quintile 691 93.3 (91.3 – 94.9) ↑ Highest quintile 730 92.8 (90.8 – 94.4) ↑ Overall 3256 89.1 (88.0 – 90.1)


* Note: This question asked monthly of children (<16 years) and bi-monthly of adults (16 yrs and over).

Social Capital

66

10.2 Neighbourhood trust

All respondents (n=3655)* were asked whether they felt that people in their neighbourhood generally trusted each other. Overall, 80.0% (95% CI 78.7 – 81.3; n=2924) of the respondents answered that they thought people trusted each other in their neighbourhood. The proportion of respondents who reported that people trusted each other in their neighbourhood is shown in Table 10.2 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Respondents living in the highest (86.1%) and high (83.6%) quintiles were statistically significantly more likely to report that people generally trusted one another in their neighbourhood while respondents living in the lowest quintile were statistically significantly less likely to report that people trusted one another in their neighbourhood.

Table 10.2: Respondents who trust people in their neighbourhood by SEIFA IRSD, all ages

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 408 67.5 (63.7 – 71.2) ↓ Low quintile 596 78.9 (75.9 – 81.7) Middle quintile 622 81.1 (78.2 – 83.7) High quintile 620 83.6 (80.8 – 86.1) ↑ Highest quintile 678 86.1 (83.6 – 88.4) ↑ Overall 2924 80.0 (78.7 – 81.3)



Social Capital

67

10.3 Home safety

All respondents (n=3655)* were asked whether they felt safe in their own home. Overall, 97.5% (95% CI 96.9 – 98.0; n=3564) of the respondents answered that they felt safe in their home all or most of the time. The proportion of respondents who reported feeling safe in their home all or most of the time is shown in Table 10.3 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Respondents living in the lowest and low quintiles were statistically significantly less likely to report feeling safe in their own home all or most of the time, while people living the high quintile were statistically significantly more likely to report feeling safe in their own home.

Table 10.3: Respondents who felt safe in their own home all or most of the time, by SEIFA IRSD, all ages

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 575 95.3 (93.1 – 96.7) ↓ Low quintile 724 95.8 (94.0 – 97.0) ↓ Middle quintile 752 98.1 (93.7 – 98.9) High quintile 736 99.3 (98.3 – 99.8) ↑ Highest quintile 776 98.6 (97.4 – 99.3) Overall 3564 97.5 (96.9 – 98.0)



Social Capital

68

10.4 Control over decisions that affect life

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=2390)* were asked whether they felt they had control over the decisions that affect their life. Overall, 91.0% (95% CI 89.8 –92.1; n=2174) of the respondents answered that they felt they had control over the decisions that affect their life. The proportion of respondents who reported having control over the decisions that affect their life is shown in Table 10.4 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Respondents living in the middle quintile (93.7%) were statistically significantly more likely to report having control over the decisions that affect their life.

Table 10.4: Control over decisions that affect life by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 359 91.8 (88.8 – 94.2) Low quintile 439 89.2 (86.3 – 91.7) Middle quintile 489 93.7 (91.3 – 95.5) ↑ High quintile 418 90.1 (87.1 – 92.6) Highest quintile 469 90.0 (87.2 – 92.3) Overall 2174 91.0 (89.8 – 92.1)



Social Capital

69

10.5 Problems with transport

Parents or caregivers of children aged 0 to 15 years (n=1262) were asked whether they felt they had problems with transport when wanting to go, for example, to the hospital, medical appointments, recreational facilities, visiting people, shopping, school or childcare. Overall, 12.3% (95% CI 10.6 – 14.2; n=155) of the respondents answered that they felt they had problems with transport sometimes or all the time. The proportion of respondents who reported having problems with transport is shown in Table 10.5 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. Respondents living in the lowest quintile (17.9%) were statistically significantly more likely to report problems with transport while respondents living in the middle quintile (7.9%) were less likely to report problems with transport.

Table 10.5: Problems with transport all or some of the time by SEIFA IRSD, 0 to 15 years

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 38 17.9 (13.2 – 23.5) ↑ Low quintile 34 12.9 (9.2 – 17.3) Middle quintile 19 7.9 (4.9 – 11.8) ↓ High quintile 37 13.3 (9.7 – 17.7) Highest quintile 27 10.2 (6.9 – 14.2) Overall 155 12.3 (10.6 – 14.2)


Social Capital

70

CHAPTER 11: DAYS LOST OR LIMITED BECAUSE OF HEALTH

11.1 Days off from usual activities

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839), were asked, during the last four weeks, how many days they were totally unable to work or carry out their normal duties because of their health. Overall, 15.4% (95% CI 14.4 – 16.4; n=814) of the respondents reported being unable to work or carry out normal duties for one or more days. The proportion of respondents who reported being unable to work or carry out normal duties for one or more days is shown in Table 11.1 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There was a statistically significantly higher proportion of people within the lowest quintile (18.7%) reporting one or more days that they were totally unable to work due to their health while there was a statistically significantly lower proportion of people living in the high quintile (12.7%) reporting being unable to work due to their health.

Table 11.1: One or more days lost out of the past four weeks because of health, by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over

n % (95% CI) Lowest quintile 173 18.7 (16.3 – 21.3) ↑ Low quintile 192 17.7 (15.5 – 20.0) Middle quintile 181 15.0 (13.1 – 17.1) High quintile 125 12.7 (10.8 – 14.9) ↓ Highest quintile 143 13.2 (11.3 – 15.4) Overall 814 15.4 (14.5 – 16.4)

↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined). Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

Days lost or limited due to health

72

11.2 Limited amount of work done

Respondents aged 16 years and over (n=4839), were asked, during the last four weeks, how many days they were partially unable to work or carry out their normal duties because of their health. Overall, 22.8% (95% CI 21.6 – 24.0; n=1104) of the respondents reported being partially unable to unable to work or carry out their normal duties for one or more days. The proportion of respondents who reported being partially unable to work or carry out their normal duties for one or more days is shown in Table 11.2 by SEIFA IRSD quintiles. There were no statistically significant differences in the proportion of respondents being partially unable to work or carry out their normal duties for one or more days.

Table 11.2: One or more days partially unable to work or carry out normal duties because of health, by SEIFA IRSD, 16 years and over


↑↓ Statistically significantly higher or lower (p <0.05) than the other categories combined). Note: The weighting of data can result in rounding discrepancies or totals not adding. Data source: SAMSS July 2002 to June 2003

73

APPENDIX 1: 2001 SEIFA INDEX OF RELATIVE SOCIO-ECONOMIC DISADVANTAGE (IRSD) QUINTILES BY POSTCODE

Table 1A: 2001 SEIFA IRSD Quintiles by postcode

Lowest quintile Low quintile Middle quintile High quintile Highest quintile 872, 5008, 5010, 5012-5015, 5017, 5023, 5084, 5085, 5094, 5107, 5108, 5110, 5112, 5113, 5115, 5163, 5164, 5166, 5168, 5174, 5253, 5260, 5278, 5279, 5345, 5401, 5422, 5540, 5550, 5556, 5608, 5700, 5722, 5732

5007, 5011, 5019, 5031, 5033, 5043, 5047, 5074, 5086- 5088, 5095, 5098, 5114, 5116, 5120, 5121, 5162, 5165, 5173 5214, 5237, 5238, 5256, 5259, 5280, 5290, 5311, 5320, 5330-5332, 5341, 5343, 5346, 5354, 5357, 5381, 5411, 5433 5440, 5470, 5473, 5480, 5481, 5495, 5501, 5558, 5583, 5606, 5654, 5690, 5710, 5723, 5731, 5733

5009, 5016, 5025, 5032, 5037, 5038, 5039, 5042, 5046, 5070, 5093, 5096, 5109, 5117, 5118, 5161, 5167, 5169 5170, 5202-5204, 5211, 5212, 5222, 5223, 5241, 5251, 5252, 5254, 5264, 5265, 5268, 5271, 5275, 5277, 5304, 5307 5308, 5333, 5340, 5342, 5344, 5353, 5355, 5356, 5372-5374, 5400, 5412, 5413, 5417, 5434, 5451, 5460, 5461, 5462 5485, 5502, 5520, 5522, 5523, 5554, 5555, 5570, 5571, 5573, 5575-5577, 5582, 5603, 5605, 5609, 5670, 5671, 5680 5720

5000, 5018, 5022, 5024, 5035, 5040, 5045, 5048, 5073, 5075, 5082, 5083, 5090, 5092, 5097, 5125-5127, 5158, 5171, 5201, 5210, 5213, 5232, 5233, 5235, 5244, 5255, 5261, 5262, 5267, 5270, 5276, 5291, 5301, 5302, 5309, 5322, 5351, 5352, 5360, 5371, 5419, 5431, 5452, 5453, 5454, 5464, 5472, 5482, 5483, 5491, 5521, 5560, 5580, 5581, 5600, 5602, 5604, 5607, 5631, 5633, 5640, 5641, 5642, 5650, 5652, 5655, 5725

5006, 5020, 5021, 5034, 5041, 5044, 5049, 5050, 5051, 5052, 5061-5069, 5072, 5076, 5081, 5089, 5091, 5131, 5132, 5133, 5136, 5137, 5139, 5140-5142, 5144, 5151-5157, 5159, 5172, 5231, 5234, 5240, 5242, 5243, 5245, 5250, 5266, 5272, 5350, 5415, 5420, 5572

74

REFERENCES

1 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, Australia, 2001. ABS:

Canberra, 2003. 2 Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and Housing, Socio-Economic Indexes

for Areas – Information Paper, Commonwealth of Australia, 1998.

3 Department of Health Population Research & Outcome Studies. SERCIS (Social, Environmental and Risk Context Information System). http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/SERCIS.html

4 Department of Health Population Research & Outcome Studies. The Health Omnibus Survey. http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/HOS.html

5 Australian Bureau of Statistics. Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas, Australia, 2001. ABS: Canberra, 2003.

6 Australian Bureau of Statistics. 1996 Census of Population and Housing, Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas – Information Paper, Commonwealth of Australia, 1998.

7 Australian Centre for Asthma Monitoring 2003. Asthma in Australia 2003. AIHW Asthma Series 1. AIHW Cat. no. ACM 1. Canberra: AIHW.

8 World Health Organization. Obesity: preventing and managing the global epidemic. Report of a WHO consultation on obesity. 1997, World Health Organization: Geneva.

9 NH&MRC. Australian Alcohol Guidelines - Health Risks and Benefits. Commonwealth of Australia 2001.

10 World Health Organisation. International Guide for Monitoring Alcohol Consumption and Related Harm, 2000. WHO/MSD/MSB/00.4

11 CATI Technical Reference Group. Population Health Monitoring and Surveillance: Question Development Background Paper. Alcohol Consumption in Australia. National Public Health Partnership. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, 2003.

12 Risky Drinking in South Australia - Brief Report 2004 – 11. South Australian Department of Human Services, Adelaide, 2004. [Online] Available at: http://www.dh.sa.gov.au/pehs/PROS/ brief-reports-pros.html.

13 G Marks, K Webb, IHE Rutishauser & M Riley. Monitoring Food Habits in the Australian Population Using Short Questions. Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care, Australia 2001.

14 NHMRC. Dietary Guidelines for children and adolescents in Australia: incorporating the Infant Feeding Guidelines for Health Workers. Commonwealth of Australia 2003. [Online] Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/nhome.htm.

15 NHMRC. Dietary Guidelines for Australia Adults. Commonwealth of Australia 2003. [Online] Available at http://www.nhmrc.gov.au/publications/nhome.htm.

16 NSW Health. The Active Australia / International Year of Older Persons public education campaign to promote physical activity among older people: NSW evaluation report. 2000 NSW Health Department

17 T Armstrong , A Bauman & J Davies . Physical Activity Patterns of Australian Adults. Results of the 1999 National Physical Activity Survey. August 2000 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. AIHW Cat No. CVD 10.

75

18 R Kessler & D Mroczek. Final versions of our non-specific psychological distress scale.

Michigan: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan. 1994. 19 D Saunders & A Daly. 2000 Collaborative Health and Wellbeing Survey: Psychological distress

in the Western Australian population. Health Department of Western Australia, June 2001. 20 K10 Symptom Scale. Clinical Research Unit for Anxiety and Depression. A WHO Collaborating

Center. School of Psychiatry, University of NSW, 2000. [Online] Available at: http://www.crufad.unsw.edu.au/K10/k10info.htm. [Accessed: 30/3/2001]

21 D Goldberg. & V Hillier. A scaled version of the General Health Questionnaire. Psychological Medicine; 1979; 9, 139-145.

22 R Goldney. D Wilson. E Dal Grande. & L Fisher. Suicidal ideation in a random community sample: attributable risk due to depression and psychosocial and traumatic events. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry, 2000; 34, 98-106.

23 C Tennant. The General Health Questionnaire: a valid index of psychological impairment in Australian populations. Medical Journal of Australia, 1977; 2, 392-394.

South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS) The ...

Documents

Transcript of South Australian Monitoring and Surveillance System (SAMSS) The ...