Healthy Communities: Australians' experiences with primary health care in 2010–11 - Report - Health status

Healthy Communities: Australians' experiences with primary health care in 2010–11

Download Report (PDF, 68.9 MB)

Health status

How do Australians rate their health?

Respondents to the ABS Patient Experience Survey were asked to assess their own health and categorise it as excellent, very good, good, fair or poor. Responses of excellent, very good and good were considered positive. In 2010–11, the percentage of adults who reported a positive health status varied across Medicare Locals, ranging from 75% to 91%.

Percentage of adults who reported excellent, very good and good health, 2010–11

Results for Medicare Locals were ranked from highest to lowest and then split into five equal-sized groups.1 The range within each of the five groups was as follows:

The following images are of maps showing medicare local boundaries. Equivalent information is available in tables in the Fair comparisons section

Map of Australia showing the percentage of adults within each medicare local catchment who reported a positive health status in 2010-11

The following is a legend for the maps detailed on this page. The first row shows the various colour ranges, the second is the relevant colour's range value and the third indicates which end is highest and lowest.
NP
75 – 82%
83 – 84%
85 – 86%
87 – 88%
89 – 91%
Lowest group
Highest group
Medicare Local catchment boundary
Numbers on map are Medicare Local reference codes

i. Perth and surrounding areas

Map of Perth and surrounding areas showing the percentage of adults within each medicare local catchment who reported a positive health status in 2010-11

ii. Adelaide and surrounding areas

Map of Adelaide and surrounding areas showing the percentage of adults within each medicare local catchment who reported a positive health status in 2010-11

iii. Melbourne and surrounding areas

Map of Melbourne and surrounding areas showing the percentage of adults within each medicare local catchment who reported a positive health status in 2010-11

iv. Canberra and surrounding areas

Map of Canberra and surrounding areas showing the percentage of adults within each medicare local catchment who reported a positive health status in 2010-11

v. Sydney and surrounding areas

Map of Sydney and surrounding areas showing the percentage of adults within each medicare local catchment who reported a positive health status in 2010-11

vi. Brisbane and surrounding areas

Map of Brisbane and surrounding areas showing the percentage of adults within each medicare local catchment who reported a positive health status in 2010-11

1. Each Medicare Local has been assigned to a quintile group. For more information see Technical Supplement.

2. For more information on peer groups see Technical Supplement.

3. Peer group results are calculated using the results of all survey responses within the group. For more information see Technical Supplement.

Note:

  • Survey excludes persons aged less than 15 years, persons living in non-private dwellings, very remote areas, and discrete Indigenous communities.
  • Self-assessed health status is based on the respondent's perception of their own health status. Perceptions are influenced by a number of factors and can change quickly. Care should be taken when analysing or interpreting the data.

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Health Survey 2010–11.

Data can be downloaded from Explore the data.

Fair comparisons

To more fairly compare Medicare Locals, each Medicare Local catchment has been grouped into one of seven peer groups2, based on remoteness and socioeconomic status. This allows:

  • Medicare Local catchments to be compared within the same metropolitan, regional or rural peer group, and
  • Medicare Local catchments to be compared with the average for their peer group3

It also allows variation to be seen across peer groups that may be associated with remoteness and socioeconomic status.

See the PDF ReportOpens in a new window. for a graphical representation of the table below.

Peer groups Map reference Adults who rated health excellent, very good or good (%)
Metro 1 89%
Sydney North Shore & Beaches 108 91%
Bayside 202 91%
Eastern Sydney 101 89%
Australian Capital Territory 801 89%
Inner NW Melbourne 201 89%
Inner East Melbourne 206 88%
Northern Sydney 107 87%
Inner West Sydney 102 87%
Metro 2 87%
Perth North Metro # 502 90%
Fremantle 503 90%
Bentley-Armadale 504 90%
South Western Melbourne 203 88%
Eastern Melbourne 207 88%
Greater Metro South Brisbane 302 88%
Perth Central & East Metro 501 88%
South Eastern Sydney 103 87%
Central Adelaide & Hills 402 87%
Sthn Adelaide-Fleurieu-Kangaroo Is. 403 85%
Metro North Brisbane 301 85%
Gold Coast # 303 83%
Metro 3 84%
Northern Melbourne 205 85%
Western Sydney 105 85%
South Western Sydney 104 84%
South Eastern Melbourne 208 84%
West Moreton-Oxley 305 84%
Macedon Ranges & NW Melb 204 83%
Northern Adelaide 401 82%
Regional 1 86%
Frankston-Mornington Peninsula 209 89%
Nepean-Blue Mountains 106 88%
Hunter 111 87%
Barwon 210 87%
Illawarra-Shoalhaven 110 86%
Sunshine Coast 304 86%
Central Coast NSW 109 84%
Perth South Coastal 505 82%
Regional 2 83%
South West WA # 506 89%
Southern NSW 117 87%
Grampians 211 85%
Gippsland 217 85%
Wide Bay 307 85%
New England 114 84%
North Coast NSW 113 84%
Murrumbidgee 116 83%
Hume 216 83%
Country South SA 404 83%
Western NSW 115 83%
Loddon-Mallee-Murray 214 82%
Tasmania 601 81%
Goulburn Valley 215 81%
Darling Downs-SW Qld 306 81%
Great South Coast 212 NP
Rural 1 82%
Townsville-Mackay # 310 86%
Country North SA 405 81%
Far West NSW # 118 75%
Lower Murray 213 NP
Central Qld 308 NP
Rural 2 88%
Goldfields-Midwest 507 89%
Far North Qld 311 87%
Northern Territory 701 87%
Central & NW Qld 309 NP
Kimberley-Pilbara 508 NP

# Statistically different (at the 95% level) from the peer group percentage.

This area has >5% of its population in very remote areas which were not included in the Patient Experience Survey 2010–11. For more information see Technical Supplement.

NP Not available for publication.

Download Report (PDF, 68.9 MB)