No abstract

There is a complex interplay between health and welfare, where social factors such as an individual's education, employment, and relationships can impact their overall health, and vice versa. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare (AIHW) is a national body that monitors the health of Australians including the social determinants and the distribution of health across populations. Where inequalities are observed, it investigates, where possible, the contributing factors. The AIHW is uniquely placed to address data gaps in inequalities, with a remit to monitor both health and welfare outcomes of Australians, access to a range of data and established relationships with national and jurisdictional governments. The AIHW reports against national frameworks such as the National Strategic Framework for Chronic Conditions. A variety of information sources are used. These include health surveys and administrative data on mortality and hospitalisations to estimate inequalities using standardised area based indices of socioeconomic status. The AIHW creates products to suit different audiences such as policy makers, researchers and the general public. These include reports, interactive web visualisations and fact sheets. AIHW research into mortality inequalities has consistently found that substantial mortality inequalities exist in the Australian population, particularly amongst those from areas of socioeconomic disadvantage. In 2016, if all Australians had the same cardiovascular disease (CVD) death rate as people in the highest socioeconomic areas, there would have been 8,600 fewer deaths. In recent times data linkage has increasingly been used to link health and social data to provide a broader understanding of the associations between social determinants and health and the health experiences of priority population groups. This presentation will give an overview of current monitoring efforts in Australia, and provide examples of methods used and current work in this area.

Focus of Presentation Australian studies examining muscle-strengthening activity (MSA) are limited and most are focused on resistance/weight training. This study uses the nationally representative Sport Australia AusPlay survey of physical activity participation and classifies activities that use major muscle groups as MSAs, adapting the methodology used in UK health studies. Using this classification, estimates are then made on how many Australian adults are doing MSAs on at least two days a week as per the Australian Physical Activity and Sedentary Behaviour Guidelines. Findings There is some uncertainty about which activities can be considered MSAs. However, evidence suggests that many activities, besides resistance/weight training, can strengthen muscles. Three definitions were used to classify physical activities reported by AusPlay respondents as either Resistance Training Only, Definitely MSAs, or Definitely and/or Potentially MSAs. These were applied to AusPlay 2017–18 data to estimate the proportion of adults who met the MSA guideline. For the primary measure of Definitely MSAs, estimates were higher than those from previous Australian studies. Consistent with previous Australian studies, a higher proportion of men than women, and younger adults than older adults, met the MSA guideline across all activity classifications. Conclusions/Implications Survey estimates of MSA participation depend on which activities are included as MSAs. More rigorous studies are needed to clearly categorise which activities can be considered as MSAs. Key messages A clearer understanding of what constitutes MSAs will improve estimates of how many Australian adults are meeting the MSA guidelines.