RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Australia’s worsening mental health – what’s next?
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2021.07.21.21259430
DO 10.1101/2021.07.21.21259430
A1 Joanne Enticott
A1 Shrinkhala Dawadi
A1 Frances Shawyer
A1 Brett Inder
A1 Ellie Fossey
A1 Helena Teede
A1 Seb Rosenberg
A1 Ingrid Ozol
A1 Graham Meadows
YR 2021
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/07/23/2021.07.21.21259430.abstract
AB Objectives To examine trends in psychological distress in Australia between 2001 to 2017-18, including analysis by age, sex, and location.Design, setting and participants Secondary analysis of six successive national health surveys of representative samples of the working age population (18-64 years).Main outcome measures Prevalence of psychological distress at very-high symptom level (defined by a Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10] score of 30 or more) and combined high/very-high level (K10 score of 22 or more).Results The latest survey showed 5.1% of Australians reporting very-high level distress and 14.8% combined high/very-high level - both the largest rates recorded this century. The greatest increase from 2001 to 2017-18 was in women aged 55-64 with very-high distress significantly increasing from 3.5% (95% CI: 2.5-4.5%) to 7.2% (5.9-8.5%), and; high/very-high distress from 12.4% (10.5-14.2%) to 18.7% (16.7-20.7%). Men aged 25-34 had very-high distress increase from 2.1% (1.4-2.8) to 4.0% (2.9-5.1%); and combined high/very-high distress remained stable at 10.6% (9.1-12.1%) to 11.5% (9.7-13.3%). In 2017-18, greatest distress was in women aged 18-24 years (very-high 8.0% (5.9-10.2%); high/very-high 22.1% (18.8-25.3%)). Overall, distress was significantly more prevalent in inner regional Australia than elsewhere (very-high level 4.8% (4.4-5.1%); high/very-high 14.4% (13.8-15%)).Conclusions Australia’s annual mental health expenditure over this period has doubled, yet population level psychological distress has increased. A whole of government approach and targeted strategies focusing on groups with the poorest mental health such as older working aged women, younger people, particularly women, and those outside of major cities are indicated.Box “The known” Previous examinations of national health surveys had suggested that population mental health was stable as measured by psychological distress.“The new” Examining six consecutive national surveys we provide evidence that mental health has significantly deteriorated between 2001 and 2018. The latest survey showed 5.1% of Australians reporting very-high distress and 14.8% combined high/very-high distress, which are the largest rates reported this century.“The implications” Whole of government approach and targeted strategies focusing on groups with the poorest mental health such as older working aged women, younger people particularly women, and those outside of major cities are indicated.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo funding to declareAuthor DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:The current study conducts secondary data analysis of six cycles (2001-02, 2004-05, 2007-08, 2011-12, 2014-15, 2017-18) of anonymised data from the National Health Survey (NHS), collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics. Per the ABS/Universities Australia Agreement, students, staff, and researchers affiliated with participating universities, which includes Monash University, have access to the basic microdata data for several datasets, including the 2001-02, 2004-05, 2007-08, 2011-12, 2014-15, 2017-18 cycles of the NHS. As a participant in the ABS/Universities Australia agreement, Monash University does not have a specific access code for the NHS data, and we did not receive (or need) an approval or registration code to access this data. Souheir Houssami, Executive Office, Human Research Ethics Office at Monash University has confirmed that we did not need ethics approval to access the NHS data, and conduct our analysis. All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThis study was a large-scale secondary analysis (n=78, 204) of K10 data from six national data sources collected from working aged Australian adults across the National Health Surveys (NHS) (2001-02, 2004-05, 2007-08, 2011-12, 2014-15, 2017-18), collected by the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS), and publicly available to access via the Microdata download portal on the ABS website: https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/microdatadownload https://www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/d3310114.nsf/home/microdatadownload