No abstract

Results: Higher levels of networks, civic participation and cohesion were reported in rural areas. Education and income were consistently linked with social capital variables for both rural and urban participants, with those on higher incomes and with higher educational achievement having higher levels of social capital.However, there were also differences between the rural and urban groups in some of the other predictors of social capital variables. Mental health was better among rural participants, but there was no significant difference for physical health.Social capital was associated with good mental health for both urban and rural participants, but with physical health only for urban participants. Higher levels of social capital were significantly associated with better mental health for both urban and rural participants, but with better physical health only for urban participants. Conclusions and implications:The study found that social capital and its relationship to health differed for participants in rural and urban areas, and that there were also differences between the areas in associations with socioeconomic variables.Policies aiming to strengthen social capital in order to promote health need to be designed for specific settings and particular communities within these. Despite this health picture, life in rural areas is often seen as being higher in social capital, as expressed through a greater sense of community and social involvement, than in urban areas.5 But there is relatively little comprehensive research comparing rural and urban areas on measures of social capital, and we do not know whether social capital has similar associations with health in rural areas as those reported in urban studies. This study uses data from a telephone survey to compare the patterns of social capital and their relationship with health for those living in rural and urban South Australia. Social capital and healthSocial capital is a theoretically contested construct with considerable debate on the best ways of conceptualising it (see refs 6 and 7) for a summary of these debates 9 We conceptualise social capital as a means to consider how individuals may differ in their access to particular components of infrastructure (e.g. trust, social networks) which may then differentially provide individuals access to resources such as help and assistance. By considering these individual components in the one analysis it is possible to build up a picture of access to 'social capital', without losing the respective strengths and weaknesses by using an overall measure. We use Bourdieu's approach rather than that proposed by Robert Putnam reflecting the communitarian school of thought. Putnam 10 conceived of social capital as a community-level resource and defined it as "features of social organisation such as networks, norms and social trust that facilitate coordination and cooperation for mutual benefit" (p 67). This view sees social capital as a public good of communities and does not explicitly consider how particular sub-...

The poor mental and physical health of people with disabilities has been well documented and there is evidence to suggest that inequalities in health between people with and without disabilities may be at least partly explained by the socioeconomic disadvantage (e.g. low education, unemployment) experienced by people with disabilities. Although there are fewer studies documenting inequalities in social capital, the evidence suggests that people with disabilities are also disadvantaged in this regard. We drew on Bourdieu's conceptualisation of social capital as the resources that flow to individuals from their membership of social networks. Using data from the General Social Survey 2010 of 15,028 adults living in private dwellings across non-remote areas of Australia, we measured social capital across three domains: informal networks (contact with family and friends); formal networks (group membership and contacts in influential organisations) and social support (financial, practical and emotional). We compared levels of social capital and self-rated health for people with and without disabilities and for people with different types of impairments (sensory and speech, physical, psychological and intellectual). Further, we assessed whether differences in levels of social capital contributed to inequalities in health between people with and without disabilities. We found that people with disabilities were worse off than people without disabilities in regard to informal and formal networks, social support and self-rated health status, and that inequalities were greatest for people with intellectual and psychological impairments. Differences in social capital did not explain the association between disability and health. These findings underscore the importance of developing social policies which promote the inclusion of people with disabilities, according to the varying needs of people with different impairments types. Given the changing policy environment, ongoing monitoring of the living circumstances of people with disabilities, including disaggregation of data by impairment type, is critical.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

Many poor suburbs in Australia with higher than average numbers of public housing tenants do not simply suffer material disadvantage but also suffer from poor reputations that are reinforced though stigmatising assumptions that portray their residents negatively. Preliminary findings from qualitative research undertaken in Adelaide, South Australia paint a somewhat different picture of some residents in public housing which counters such stereotypes and assumptions and suggests that the picture is not as bleak as the stigmatised accounts suggest. This article examines the ways in which residents in stigmatised suburbs and housing actively resist and challenge the negative image ascribed to them and concludes by considering the public policy implications that come from the research.

Study objective: To determine the involvement in civil society groups (CSGs) and the impact of this on health. Design: Case study, cross sectional, self completion questionnaire, and semi-structured interviews. Setting: Residents in two suburbs in Adelaide, South Australia. Participants: Every household (1038) received a questionnaire asking the adult with the next birthday to complete it. A total of 530 questionnaires were returned. Sixteen questionnaire respondents were also interviewed. Main results: 279 (53%) questionnaire respondents had been involved in a CSG in the past 12 months, 190 (36%) in locally based CSGs, and 188 (35%) in CSGs outside the area. Eleven of the 16 interviewees had been involved in a CSG. A path analysis examined the relation between demographic variables, CSG involvement, and mental and physical health, as measured by the SF-12. Physical health was negatively associated with CSG involvement and older age, and positively associated with working full time or part time and higher education level. Mental health was positively associated with older age, working full time or part time, and higher income but negatively associated with having a child under 18, speaking a language other than English and higher education level. Very few interviewees made a direct link between CSGs and positive individual health outcomes, though some positive community level outcomes were noted. More consistent were reports of the detrimental effects of CSG involvement on mental and physical health. Conclusions: Involvement in CSGs was significant but not always positive for health. It is possible that CSG involvement is good for a community but not necessarily for the individual.