4.1 Article

Mortality patterns of Australian male farmers and farm managers

Journal

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF RURAL HEALTH
Volume 19, Issue 4, Pages 179-184

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.1440-1584.2011.01209.x

Keywords

epidemiology; farmers; mortality; public health; rural health

Funding

  1. Hunter New England Health Service

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the all-cause and specific-cause death rates of Australian male farmers and farm managers aged 25-74 years, with other Australian men. Methods: Data were extracted from the Australian Bureau of Statistics Death Registration Collection covering the calendar years of 1999-2002. Denominator data for male farmers and farm managers were drawn from the 2001 Australian Population Census. Direct age-standardized death rates were calculated and compared with the general Australian male population. Results: The 4025 male farmers or farm managers who died in this period represented 3.35% of all male deaths in the 25-74 year age range. The all-cause death rate for farmers and farm managers (730/100 000) was 33% higher than that of the Australian male population of the same age (549/100 000) (standardized mortality ratio (SMR) = 1.33). Causes of death related to neoplasms (SMR = 1.37), circulatory disease (SMR = 1.40) and all external causes (SMR = 1.37), were all statistically higher than the comparison population. Within these groupings, ischaemic heart disease (SMR = 1.39), other circulatory disease (SMR = 1.42), prostate cancer (SMR = 2.40), lymphohaematopoietic cancer (SMR = 1.80) and transport injuries (SMR = 2.06), were all significantly higher. Conclusion: These data indicate that Australian male farmers and farm managers are a disadvantaged group in terms of health status. The elevated rates of all-cause and specific-cause mortality compared with the Australian comparison population, illustrate both the need and scope for further investigation of these issues.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available