Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2017 Aug 3;18(1):51.
doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4568-1.

Exploring the determinants of health and wellbeing in communities living in proximity to coal seam gas developments in regional Queensland

Fiona Mactaggart  1 , Liane McDermott  2 , Anna Tynan  3 , Christian A Gericke  3   4
Affiliations

Exploring the determinants of health and wellbeing in communities living in proximity to coal seam gas developments in regional Queensland

Fiona Mactaggart et al. BMC Public Health. .

Erratum in

  • Erratum to: BMC Public Health, Vol. 18.
    [No authors listed] [No authors listed] BMC Public Health. 2017 Sep 22;17(1):736. doi: 10.1186/s12889-017-4709-6. BMC Public Health. 2017. PMID: 28938882 Free PMC article. No abstract available.

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.

Methods: Qualitative analysis was initially completed using the Framework Method to explore key themes from 11 focus group discussions, 19 in-depth interviews, and 45 key informant interviews with health and wellbeing service providers and community members. A key theme emerged from the analysis that forms the basis of this paper. This study is part of a larger comprehensive HNA involving qualitative and quantitative data collection to explore the health and wellbeing needs of three communities living in proximity to CSG development in regional Queensland, Australia.

Results: Communities faced social, economic and environmental impacts from the rapid growth of CSG development, which were perceived to have direct and indirect effects on individual lifestyle factors such as alcohol and drug abuse, family relationships, social capital and mental health; and community-level factors including social connectedness, civic engagement and trust.

Conclusions: Outer regional communities discussed the effects of mining activity on the fabric of their town and community, whereas the inner regional community that had a longer history of industrial activity discussed the impacts on families and individual health and wellbeing. The findings from this study may inform future health service planning in regions affected by CSG in the development /construction phase and provide the mining sector in regional areas with evidence from which to develop social responsibility programs that encompass health, social, economic and environmental assessments that more accurately reflect the needs of the affected communities.

Keywords: Health needs assessment; Rural health; Social determinants of health; Wellbeing.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was granted ethics approval by the Uniting Care Human Research Ethics Committee, (reference number 1410). All participants were given verbal introduction to the study and provided with an information sheet to read. Participants were asked to sign a consent form if they wanted to proceed with the interviews and focus groups. Pseudonyms have been used and all other identifiable information removed for data storage and reporting.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
A simplified HNA process describing the first two stages used in this study. Adapted from Cavanagh and Chadwick [14]
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
The 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
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Office of the Chief Economist, Australian Government. Review of the socio-economic impacts of coal seam gas in Queensland 2015. Department of Industry, Innovation and Science. Report. 2015.
    1. Mactaggart F, McDermott L, Tynan A, Gericke C. Examining health and well-being outcomes associated with mining activity in rural communities of high-income countries: a systematic review. Aust J Rural Health. 2016;24(4):230–237. doi: 10.1111/ajr.12285. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Stephens C, Ahern, M. Worker and community health impacts related to mining operations internationally: A rapid review of the literature. London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine. Report. 2002.
    1. Coelho P, Teixeira J, Gonçalves O. Mining activities: health impacts. In: Nriagu JO, editor. Encyclopedia of environmental health. Burlington: Elsevier; 2011. p. 788–802.
    1. Epstein P, Buonocore J, Eckerle K, Hendryx M, Stout B, Heinberg R, Clapp R, May B, Reinhart N, Ahern M, Doshi S, Glustrom L. Full cost accounting for the life cycle of coal in ‘Ecological economics Reviews’. Ann NY Acad Sci. 2011;1219:73–98. - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources