Citation

Gregory G. Aust. J. Rural Health 2009; 17(1): 49-52.

Copyright

(Copyright © 2009, Association for Australian Rural Nurses; National Rural Health Alliance, Publisher John Wiley and Sons)

DOI

10.1111/j.1440-1584.2008.01037.x

PMID

unavailable

Abstract

This summary paper for the symposium provides a brief overview of the papers by Craig Veitch, John Beard and Max Kamien that deal with the environmental, socioeconomic and political descriptors of ‘rurality’. Those three papers deal with a number of fundamental truths about rural and remote health, including the fact that internal migration is an important and poorly understood factor in determining community and health outcomes. A brief treatment of the issue suggests that selective internal migration is likely to mean that the burden of illness in rural and remote areas is even higher than that suggested by the published figures. The paper then asserts that thinking in the rural and remote health sector in Australia focuses largely on the negative aspects of the current characteristics of rural areas. A self‐evident definition of ‘rurality’ is offered that has it defined by the set of factors that currently characterise places, communities and individuals outside the major cities. The paper suggests that each of these characteristics has an upside or benefit, as well as a downside or risk, and that giving greater attention to the former will provide a better basis for informing rural health policy and practice than the deficit view alone.