A comparison of content from across contemporary Australian population health surveys

Branislava Godic; Selin Akaraci; Rajith Vidanaarachchi; Kerry Nice; Sachith Seneviratne; Suzanne Mavoa; Ruth Hunter; Leandro Garcia; Mark Stevenson; Jasper Wijnands; Jason Thompson

doi:10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100152

A comparison of content from across contemporary Australian population health surveys

Aust N Z J Public Health. 2024 May 14;48(3):100152. doi: 10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100152. Online ahead of print.

Authors

Affiliations

¹ Phoenix Australia Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: b.godic@unimelb.edu.au.
² Centre for Public Health, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK.
³ Faculty of Architecture, Building, and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Faculty of Engineering and Information Technology, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
⁴ Faculty of Architecture, Building, and Planning, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
⁵ School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia; Murdoch Children's Research Institute (MCRI), Parkville, Victoria, Australia.
⁶ Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute (KNMI), de Bilt, the Netherlands.
⁷ Phoenix Australia Centre for Posttraumatic Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.

PMID: 38749164
DOI: 10.1016/j.anzjph.2024.100152

Abstract

Objective: Associations between place and population health are of interest to researchers and policymakers. The objective of this paper is to explore, summarise and compare content across contemporary Australian geo-referenced population health survey data sets.

Methods: A search for recent (2015 or later) population health surveys from within Australia containing geographic information from participants was conducted. Survey response frames were analysed and categorised based on demographic, risk factor and disease-related characteristics. Analysis using interactive Sankey diagrams shows the extent of content overlap and differences between population health surveys in Australia.

Results: Thirteen Australian geo-referenced population health survey data sets were identified. Information captured across surveys was inconsistent as was the spatial granularity of respondent information. Health and demographic features most frequently captured were symptoms, signs and clinical findings from the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems version 11, employment, housing, income, self-rated health and risk factors, including alcohol consumption, diet, medical treatments, physical activity and weight-related questions. Sankey diagrams were deployed online for use by public health researchers.

Conclusions: Identifying the relationship between place and health in Australia is made more difficult by inconsistencies in information collected across surveys deployed in different regions in Australia.

Implications for public health: Public health research investigating place and health involves a vast and inconsistent patchwork of information within and across states, which may impact broad-scale research questions. The tools developed here assist public health researchers to identify surveys suitable for their research queries related to place and health.

Keywords: health data sets; health policy; public health; public health research.