All injury deaths

SES by sex and age

In 2015–16, rates of injury mortality varied across socioeconomic groups in a manner consistent with the concept of a ‘social gradient of health’ (Table 2.1). Rates were highest for the lowest (most disadvantaged) group and declined with increasing socioeconomic advantage. A similar pattern was observed for males, with the rate for the lowest (most disadvantaged) socioeconomic group almost 1.6 times the rate for the highest (least disadvantaged) socioeconomic group. A similar, but less pronounced, pattern was also observed for females (although the rate for females from the second most disadvantaged group was higher than the rate for females from the most disadvantaged group). Rates for males were consistently around 2 times as high as rates for females.

Table 2.1: Injury deaths, by socioeconomic group, by sex, Australia, 2015–16

 

 

Socioeconomic status of area of usual residence
1 – lowest 2 3 4 5-highest Total(a)
Males            
Deaths

1,850

1,783

1,611

1,294

1,111

7,732

Deaths per 100,000(b) 75.0 70.8 66.3 55.0 47.7 63.5
Rate ratio (c) 1.2 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8  
Females            
Deaths

1,109

1,226

1,054 908 829 5,152
Deaths per 100,000(b) 34.4 37.6 33.9 30.3 26.6 32.7
Rate ratio(c) 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8  
Persons            
Deaths

2,959

3,009

2,665 2,202 1,940 12,884
Deaths per 100,000(b) 54.6 53.9 49.6 42.4 36.7 47.7
Rate ratio(c) 1.1 1.1 1.0 0.9 0.8  

Notes

  1. ‘Total’ includes cases for which the socioeconomic group was not able to be determined.
  2. Rates are directly age-standardised using populations by socioeconomic status groups, which do not include persons in areas for which the socioeconomic status could not be determined. Therefore, the total standardised rates for analyses by socioeconomic status group differ from rates calculated by state or territory.
  3. Rate ratio = rate for each individual socioeconomic group/total rate.

Figure 2.1 shows the proportion of injury deaths in each socioeconomic group for males and females. Similar patterns were observed as for rates (see Table 2.1). For males, the proportion of deaths was highest in the lowest (most disadvantaged) socioeconomic group and declined with socioeconomic advantage, while for females, the proportion of deaths in the second most disadvantaged socioeconomic group was higher than proportion of deaths in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic group.

Figure 2.1: Proportion of injury deaths, by socioeconomic group, by sex, Australia, 2015–16

Bar chart indicating per cent of deaths for males and females

Note: Data underpinning this figure can be found in Table S1 in the supplementary table spreadsheet.

Figure 2.2 shows the age-specific rates of injury mortality by socioeconomic group. Rates for different age groups generally declined with the level of socioeconomic advantage. This effect was most pronounced for those aged 25–44 and 45–64. Rates for people aged 65 and over were markedly higher across all socioeconomic groups when compared with all other age groups. Notably, for those aged 65 and over, the rate of injury mortality was similar for residents of the lowest (most disadvantaged) and of the highest (least disadvantaged) socioeconomic groups.

Rates for children aged 0–4 and 5–14 were not shown, due to relatively low case numbers.

Figure 2.2: Age-specific rates of injury mortality, by socioeconomic group, Australia, 2015–16

Bar chart showing deaths per 100,000 for 4 age groups

Notes

  1. Rates are directly age-standardised using populations by socioeconomic status groups, which do not include persons in areas for which the socioeconomic status could not be determined. Therefore, the total standardised rates for analyses by socioeconomic status group differ from rates calculated by state or territory.
  2. Data underpinning this figure can be found in Table S2 in the supplementary table spreadsheet.

Figure 2.3 shows the proportion of injury deaths in each socioeconomic group by age group. For age groups 15–24, 25–44 and 45–64, the proportion of deaths in each socioeconomic group declined steadily with increasing socioeconomic advantage. For these 3 age groups, the proportion of deaths in the lowest (most disadvantaged) socioeconomic group was close to 2 times as high as the proportion of deaths in the highest (least disadvantaged) socioeconomic group.

Different patterns were observed for the 2 youngest age groups. For children aged 0–4, 29% and 32% of deaths occurred in the most disadvantaged and in the second most disadvantaged socioeconomic groups, respectively, while for children aged 5–14 years, 34% of deaths occurred in the most disadvantaged socioeconomic group. (These results should be treated with some caution, due to the relatively low case numbers for these 2 age groups.) Differences in proportions between socioeconomic groups were less pronounced for those aged 65 and over, with the highest proportion (24%) observed in the second most disadvantaged socioeconomic group.

Figure 2.3: Proportion of injury deaths, by socioeconomic group, by age group, Australia, 2015–16

Bar chart showing per cent of deaths for 6 age groups

Note: Data underpinning this figure can be found in Table S3 in the supplementary table spreadsheet.