Social networks and mental health among a farming population
- 984 Downloads
The study investigated the associations between mental health and measures of community support, social support networks, sense of place, adversity, and perceived problems in a rural Australian population. There was a specific focus on farming communities due to previous qualitative research by the authors indicating distress by farmers in response to drought (Sartore et al. Aust Fam Phys 36(12), 990–993, 2007).
A survey was mailed to adults randomly selected from the Australian Electoral Roll and residing within four local government areas (LGAs) of varying remoteness in rural New South Wales (NSW). Survey measures included: support networks and community attachment; recent stressors (including drought-related stress); and measures of health and related functioning. The Kessler-10 provided an index of current psychological distress.
The sample (n = 449; response rate 24%) was predominantly female (58.4%) and 18.9% were farmers or farm workers. Moderate to very high psychological distress was reported for 20.7% of the sample. Half (56.1%) of all respondents, and specifically 71.8% of farmers or farm workers, reported high levels of perceived stress due to drought. Psychological distress was associated with recent adverse life events, increased alcohol use and functional impairment. Hierarchical regression analysis demonstrated an independent effect of the number of stressful life events including drought related stress, perceived social support (community and individual), alcohol use and physical functioning ability on levels of psychological distress. This model accounted for 43% of the variance in current levels of distress. Lower community support had a more marked impact on distress levels for non-farming than farming participants.
This study has highlighted the association between unique rural community characteristics and rural stressors (such as drought) and measures of mental health, suggesting the important mediating role of social factors and community characteristics. The results illustrate the importance of addressing subgroup differences in the role of social capital in mental health.
Keywordssocial connection rural mental health connectedness community
- 1.Albrecht GA (2005) Solastalgia: a new concept in human health and identity. PAN Philos Activ Nat 3:41–55Google Scholar
- 4.Berry HL (2008) Social capital elite, excluded participators, busy working parents, ageing, participating less: types of community participators and their mental health. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol (online 22)Google Scholar
- 7.Caldwell TM, Jorm AF, Dear KB (2004) Suicide and mental health in rural, remote and metropolitan areas in Australia. Med J Aust 18(Suppl.7):S10–S14Google Scholar
- 8.Connor L, Albrecht G, Higginbotham N, Freeman S, Smith W (2004) Environmental change, human health in Upper Hunter communities of New South Wales. EcoHealth 1:47–58Google Scholar
- 10.Eysenck HJ, Eysenck BG (1968) Eysenck Personality Inventory. San Diego, California: Educational, Industrial Testing ServiceGoogle Scholar
- 12.Goudy WJ (1990) Community attachment in a rural region. Rural Sociol 55:178–198Google Scholar
- 16.ISR (2001) Community Participation Survey: Surf Coast Shire. Melbourne: Swinburne University of Technology: Institute for Social ResearchGoogle Scholar
- 22.AIHW (2004) Rural, regional, remote health: A guide to remote classifications. Canberra: Australian Institute of Health and Welfare; 2004. Report no.: PHE 53Google Scholar
- 23.AIHW (2005) Rural, regional, remote health: Indicators of health. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. Report no.: PHE 59Google Scholar
- 25.Sartore G-M, Kelly BJ, Stain HJ (2007) Drought and the effect on mental health: how GPs can help. Aust Fam Phys 36(12):990–993Google Scholar
- 27.Statistics ABo. Census QuikStats. 2006 (cited 2006 13.12.2007); Available from: www.censusdata.abs.gov.auGoogle Scholar
- 28.AIHW (2004) The relationship between overweight, obesity, cardiovascular disease. Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, Canberra. National Heart Foundation; Report no.: AIHW Cat. no CVD29Google Scholar