Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-7pwfn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T20:12:15.325Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The mental health and well-being of rural people: a pilot study measuring community factors

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 June 2014

F Hourihan,
T Lewin,
H Stain and
B Kelly
F Hourihan
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Orange, Australia
T Lewin
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Orange, Australia
H Stain
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Orange, Australia
B Kelly
Affiliation:
Centre for Rural and Remote Mental Health, University of Newcastle, Orange, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content. As you have access to this content, full HTML content is provided on this page. A PDF of this content is also available in through the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Information

Type
Abstracts from ‘Brainwaves’— The Australasian Society for Psychiatric Research Annual Meeting 2006, 6–8 December, Sydney, Australia
Information
Acta Neuropsychiatrica , Volume 18 , Issue 6 , December 2006, pp. 255
Copyright
Copyright © 2006 Blackwell Munksgaard

Background:

This study was a pilot for an NHMRC-funded project examining mental health and well-being among 4000 rural households in New South Wales.

Aim:

To investigate relationships between novel indexes detailing perceived features of the rural community and psychological distress.

Methods:

A survey was mailed to 2000 adults (aged 18 years or older) randomly selected through the electoral roll from four local government areas of varying remoteness. Perceived community support (infrastructure and support networks) and community attachment were measured using items from a ‘Community Participation Survey’ and ‘Feelings about Living in the Community’ (Higginbotham et al. 2005). Postulated rural stressors included drought impact and access to health care. Psychological distress was measured using the Kessler-10.

Results:

The sample (n = 449; response rate 24%) was slightly overrepresented by women (58%) and older age groups (mean 51 years ±15) and 29% were farmers/farmworkers. Moderate to very high psychological distress (K10 > 15) was reported in 23% of the sample. ‘Worry/stress’ from the drought was reported by 57% of respondents. Psychological distress also correlated with ‘worry/stress’ from rural stressors. In a hierarchical regression analysis, neuroticism, perceived health, number of stressful life events and perceived community support and attachment explained 52% of the variance in psychological distress.

Conclusions:

This pilot study has highlighted an association between perceived features of the rural community and mental health, which will be explored in greater detail in our ongoing research investigating determinants of mental health and well-being within rural communities.