| Literature DB >> 28768495 |
Fiona Mactaggart1, Liane McDermott2, Anna Tynan3, Christian A Gericke3,4.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: There is some concern that coal seam gas mining may affect health and wellbeing through changes in social determinants such as living and working conditions, local economy and the environment. The onward impact of these conditions on health and wellbeing is often not monitored to the same degree as direct environmental health impacts in the mining context, but merits attention. This study reports on the findings from a recurrent theme that emerged from analysis of the qualitative component of a comprehensive Health Needs Assessment (HNA) conducted in regional Queensland: that health and wellbeing of communities was reportedly affected by nearby coal seam gas (CSG) development beyond direct environmental impacts.Entities:
Keywords: Health needs assessment; Rural health; Social determinants of health; Wellbeing
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28768495 PMCID: PMC5541641 DOI: 10.1186/s12889-017-4568-1
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Public Health ISSN: 1471-2458 Impact factor: 3.295
Demographic and economic summaries of four study sites in regional Queensland, 2014
| Region 1 | Region 2 & 3 | Region 4 | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Demographics | |||
| ARIA classification | Outer regionala | Inner and outer regional | Inner regionalb |
| LGA Land Area | 58,800 km2 | 38,000 km2 | 10,500 km2 |
| Population | 14,000 | 34,000 | 66,000 |
| % aged <55 years | 76% | 74.5%c | 80% |
| Economic environment | |||
| Main industries | Mining and agriculture | Agriculture, mining and manufacturing | Mining and manufacturing |
| Median family income | $1444/week | $1294/week | $1941/week |
aSignificantly restricted accessibility to goods, services and opportunities for social interaction
bSome restricted accessibility to goods, services and opportunities for social interaction
cOn average, population slightly older than the total Queensland population [37]
Fig. 1A simplified HNA process describing the first two stages used in this study. Adapted from Cavanagh and Chadwick [14]
Qualitative primary research involved 45 key informant interviews with health and community service providers; and 11 focus group discussions and 19 individual in-depth interviews with community members across the four study sites
| Region | Key informant interviews (KII) | Focus group discussions (FGD) | Individual interviews (IDI) |
|---|---|---|---|
| Region 1 | Primary care and community services (5) | Male group (3) | Male (1) |
| Hospitals (4) | Female group (10) | Females (4) | |
| Specialised health and community services (3) | Mixed group (4; 1 male, 3 females) | ||
| Public health services (2) | |||
| Regions 2&3 | Specialised health and community services (11) | Male group (6) | Male (1) |
| Primary care and community health services (4) | Female group (6) | Females (2) | |
| Mixed group (6; 1 male, 5 females) | |||
| Mixed group (9; 2 males, 7 females) | |||
| Region 4 | Specialised health and community services (10) | Male group (4) | Males (5) |
| Primary care and community health services (3) | Female group (3) | Females (6) | |
| Hospitals (2) | Female group (4) | ||
| Government (1) | Mixed group (4; 1 male, 3 females) | ||
| TOTAL | 45 | 59 | 19 |
Fig. 2The Framework Method was developed with reference to the social determinants of health model and provided the authors with an initial structure to systematically reduce and analyse the data
Summary of key findings and recommendations
| Key Findings | Context | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|
| CSG mining during development stage has implications for the social determinants of health (SDoH) and health and wellbeing outcomes | Direct and indirect impacts both at individual and community level | Potential impacts of CSG mining could incorporate standardised assessment of SDoH at individual and community level, with acknowledgment that setting (e.g. level of remoteness can affect magnitude of outcomes; avoid ‘one size fits all’ approach |
| Density and remoteness affects magnitude and type of impacts felt | Inner regional experienced more individual level impacts vs outer regional which experienced more community level impacts | |
| Effects on health and wellbeing may vary with the stages of CSG mining | Lack of assessment of ongoing and cumulative health impacts through the stages | Monitor health and wellbeing over time to enable evidence-informed planning and response to fluctuating demands |
| Lack of community understanding of CSG timeline and local impacts | Insecurity, lack of trust and concern for the future following completion of CSG mining could exacerbate negative perceptions | Communication of short and long term impacts is imperative alongside effective mitigation and planning |
| Population level studies are effective to highlight opportunities for targeted research | Groups that might be disproportionately affected by CSG included farmers, young families and women | Targeted research to determine what services are in place or required to meet temporary or longer term needs |
| Measuring and responding to the impacts of a mining project is not the responsibility of the mining company alone | Assessments should focus on the population, not the project, in order to uncover health and wellbeing outcomes that may not have otherwise been captured | A partnership approach involving local government, communities, research institutes, mining companies and social and health organisations is imperative |