Search

Background: Rural Australian populations experience an increased burden of ischaemic heart disease (IHD) compared to their metropolitan counterparts, similar to other developed countries, globally. Policy and other efforts need to address and acknowledge these differences in order to reduce inequalities in health burden. This paper examines rural health policy makers’ perceptions and use of evidence in efforts to reduce the burden of IHD in rural areas. Methods: Policy makers and government advisors (n = 21) who worked with, or advised on, rural health policy at local, state and federal government levels, with specific focus on the state of Victoria (n = 9) were identified from publicly available documents and subsequent snowball sample. Semi-structured qualitative interviews were conducted in regards to the use of evidence in policy to prevent IHD and thematic analysis undertaken applying two theoretical perspectives: context-based evidence-based policy making and the conceptual framework for understanding rural and remote health. Results: The rural context, particularly low resourcing, was seen as limiting potential for evidence based policy at local government (LG) level. Lower levels of political pressure and education were seen as constraints to evidence-based policy in rural communities. Participants described the potential for policy to have a greater impact on reducing heart disease in rural areas though they felt under-resourced and out of touch with the scientific evidence. Scientific studies were less valued than local anecdote to prioritise specific policy. At all levels (local, state and federal) low self-efficacy in interpreting evidence and perceived lack of relevance inhibited development of evidence informed policy. Conclusion: The rural context constrains the use of scientific evidence in policy making for the prevention of heart disease in rural areas in Australia with multiple factors influencing the capacity for evidenced based health policy. This is similar to findings at the international scale and is for consideration across other developed countries that experience inequalities in IHD disease burden between rural and urban populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The aim of this study was to identify the main on-farm welfare issues likely to be encountered in extensive sheep farming systems. Thirty-two commercial sheep farms in Victoria, Australia were involved in this study. Of the 32 farms involved, 30 were visited twice (at mid-pregnancy and weaning), and 2 farms only once (both at weaning). In total, 62 visits were conducted and 6,200 ewes (aged 2–5 years) were examined using six animal-based indicators: body condition score (BCS), fleece condition, skin lesions, tail length, dag score and lameness. In addition, the number of ewes that needed further care (such as sick or injured sheep) was recorded and reported to the farmers. Generalised linear mixed models were conducted to investigate associations between welfare outcomes and visit, ewe breed and location, with all three, and their interactions, as fixed factors. In all instances, farm was set as a random factor to account for specific variation between farms. Overall, the welfare of the ewe flocks, based on the six indicators measured, was considered good. A total of 86.9% of the ewes were in adequate BCS (2.5–3.5), 91% had good fleece condition, 69.2% had no skin lesions, 97.1% had low dag scores, and overall lameness was 4.7%. An important and prevalent risk to welfare identified across farms was short tail length; with 85.7% of ewes having tails docked shorter than the third palpable joint. While the welfare of the flock was good, ewes in need of further care were identified at all farms. There were 185 (3.0%) cases needing further care, and the extent of welfare compromise of these animals was considered significant. Main reasons for further care were moderate/severe lameness or foot-related issues, BCS ≤ 2 and active dermatophilosis or broken wool. To our knowledge, this study constitutes the largest assessment of ewes conducted in Australia, and the findings provide valuable insight into the main welfare issues likely to be encountered in extensive sheep farming enterprises. Future studies should develop practical technologies that can assist in the detection of the welfare issues identified in this study. In addition, the thresholds identified here could be used for future comparison and sheep welfare benchmarking programs to assess farm performance and measure continuous improvements. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]