↓ Skip to main content

The health and wellbeing of Australian farmers: a longitudinal cohort study

Overview of attention for article published in BMC Public Health, September 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (93rd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (92nd percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
twitter
11 X users
googleplus
1 Google+ user

Citations

dimensions_citation
91 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
199 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The health and wellbeing of Australian farmers: a longitudinal cohort study
Published in
BMC Public Health, September 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12889-016-3664-y
Pubmed ID
Authors

Bronwyn Brew, Kerry Inder, Joanne Allen, Matthew Thomas, Brian Kelly

Abstract

Isolation, long work days, climate change and globalization are just some of the many pressures that make farming a vulnerable occupation for incurring mental health issues. The objective of this study was to determine whether farming in Australia is associated with poorer wellbeing, physical and mental health, and less health service use. The Australian Rural Mental Health Study, a longitudinal cohort study was analysed over four time points comparing farmers with non-farming workers (n = 1184 at baseline). Participants were recruited from rural NSW, Australia. A number of physical, mental health, wellbeing, service use outcomes were assessed using generalised estimating equations including all waves in each model. Barriers to seeking help were also assessed. Farmers who lived remotely reported worse mental health (β -0.33, 95 % CI -0.53, -0.13) and wellbeing (β -0.21(95 % CI -0.35, -0.06) than remote non-farm workers regardless of financial hardship, rural specific factors eg drought worry, or recent adverse events. All farmers were no different to non-farming workers on physical health aspects except for chronic illnesses, where they reported fewer illnesses (OR 0.66, 95 % CI 0.44, 0.98). All farmers were half as likely to visit a general practitioner (GP) or a mental health professional in the last 12 months as compared to non-farm workers regardless of location (OR 0.59, 95 % CI 0.35, 0.97). Rural workers felt that they preferred to manage themselves rather than access help for physical health needs (50 %) or mental health needs (75 %) and there was little difference between farmers and non-farm workers in reasons for not seeking help. Remoteness is a significant factor in the mental health and wellbeing of farmers, more so than financial stress, rural factors and recent adverse events. Creative programs and policies that improve access for farmers to GPs and mental health professionals should be supported.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 199 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Australia 1 <1%
Unknown 198 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 34 17%
Researcher 25 13%
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 9%
Student > Bachelor 13 7%
Student > Postgraduate 10 5%
Other 25 13%
Unknown 75 38%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 27 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 17 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 17 9%
Nursing and Health Professions 13 7%
Psychology 13 7%
Other 35 18%
Unknown 77 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 31. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 July 2019.
All research outputs
#1,256,933
of 25,081,505 outputs
Outputs from BMC Public Health
#1,398
of 16,723 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,331
of 328,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from BMC Public Health
#28
of 341 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,081,505 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 16,723 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 328,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 341 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.