Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?

Recommendations

Info

Appendix C Evaluation methodology: supplementary information The evaluation of headspace used a longitudinal, mixed methods approach. This section provides more information on the multiple methods employed. headspace Centres Services Application (hCSA) data In early 2012, headspace sought and received funding from DoHA to develop a new, fully customised web-based system to collect data (the Data Capture Project). Development of the new minimum dataset (now referred to as the headspace Centres Services Application or hCSA) began in the second half of 2012. MHAGIC was decommissioned and hCSA became operational in January 2013. The hCSA collects data directly from clients and clinicians at each unit of service. The onus of the data collection is on both the client and clinician, consequently there are occasions of service where no information or only partial information has been collected. The hCSA data collection includes four separate questionnaires, each of which are presented to the client at different stages of headspace service access. The questionnaires include a first time questionnaire; an every time question set; an outcomes question set; and a client satisfaction question set. An optional follow-up question set also exists, however this has had a low response rate and so has not been analysed for this evaluation. The hCSA is a valuable source of data and has been used in the evaluation to: • Provide a profile of who uses headspace services and what services they use. • Benchmark data to compare the representativeness of the ‘headspace treatment’ group with all headspace clients and apply fixes where necessary. • Inform how services provided by headspace centres are funded and any patterns that may exist in funding allocation for particular services. • Understand the effectiveness of headspace treatment and predictors of positive outcomes through a before and after analyses, which takes advantage of the volume and breadth of information available in the administrative data. • Informing the effectiveness of headspace through other information sources including client satisfaction reports. Two measures included in the hCSA data set that have been used in the evaluation to assess the effectiveness of headspace are the Kessler 10 (K10) and the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale (SOFAS). Specific information in each scale including scoring categorisations used for this evaluation is provided below. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was developed for use in general health surveys, originally for the US National Health Interview Survey, to enable differentiation between cases of serious mental illness and non-cases (Kessler, 2003). While it was initially created to provide Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 168
Appendix C information relating to the prevalence of mental illness and its correlates at a population level (Kessler et al., 2010) it is now widely used by service providers to identify non-specific psychological distress as well as mental health disorders in individuals (Slade et al., 2011; Sunderland et al., 2012). Whilst the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale is not intended to be used as a diagnostic tool, it aims to measure psychological distress, and high scores in the Scale have been found to be associated with psychological disorders (Victorian Government, 2010). The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale is available in a number of formats; the K10, K10+ and the K6 (Siggins Miller Consultants, 2003). Each are a brief self-report style questionnaire comprised of questions related to how a person has been feeling over the last 30 days, with each question answered, and scored on a 5 point Likert scale ranging from “none of the time” to “all of the time” (Slade& Andrews., 2001; Fassaert et al., 2009; Siggins Miller Consultants, 2003). The K10 is a 10 item self-report questionnaire that is used to measure levels of psychological distress and is scored between 10 and 50. Higher scores indicate higher and more severe distress, while lower scores indicate less distress (Slade & Andrews, 2001). In this evaluation, K10 scores are categorised based on Australian Bureau of Statistics health surveys into low (10-15), moderate (16-21), high (22-29) and very high (30-50). The evaluation has relied heavily on the K10 because it is an outcome measure that is included in both the young people surveys and the hCSA. The Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scale The social and occupational functioning of headspace clients was assessed using the Social and Occupational Functional Assessment Scale (SOFAS). This scale assesses how a person’s physical impairment and mental health may be affecting their functionality (Pederson & Karterud, 2012; Romera et al., 2011). Functioning is measured on a scale from 10 (serious functional impairment) to 100 (optimal functioning) with scores of 80 and above representing normal functionality (Romera et al., 2011). Scores around 60 indicate a person may have moderate difficulty in functioning, while scores around 70 represent adequate functioning though with some difficulty (Chanen et al., 2007). SOFAS is rated by headspace service providers based on the following scale: Enter a score on a scale of 1-100, as follows: 91-100: Superior functioning in a wide range of activities 81-90: Good functioning in all areas, occupational and socially effective 71-80: No more than a slight impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning 61-70: Some difficulty in social, occupational or school functioning 51-60: Moderate difficulty in social, occupational or school functioning 41-50: Serious impairment in social, occupational, or school functioning 31-40: Major impairment in several areas such as work or school, family relations 21-30: Inability to function in almost all areas 11-20: Occasionally fails to maintain minimal personal hygiene. 1-10: Persistent inability to maintain minimal personal hygiene 0: Inadequate information SOFAS scores are recorded at almost all (88 %) occasions of service. Survey of Young People Three different surveys of young people were conducted as part of the evaluation, each with 2 waves of data collection, conducted at two separate time points to measure change over time; • A sample of headspace clients comprising the intervention group survey; • A comparison group of 12-17 year olds using Young Minds Matter: The Second Australian Child and Adolescent Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing (YMM); and • A comparison group of 18-25 year olds sourced from a national panel. Initially it had been intended that each of these 3 surveys would be in the field at more or less the Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 169
Page 1 and 2:
Is headspace making a difference to
Page 3 and 4:
Authors This report was written by
Page 5 and 6:
5. Service Delivery Model 73 5.1 Wh
Page 7 and 8:
Table 6.1 Table 6.2 Table 6.3 Main
Page 9 and 10:
Figure 4.9 Figure 4.10 Figure 4.11
Page 11 and 12:
Executive Summary headspace 1 aims
Page 13 and 14:
Executive Summary or very high leve
Page 15 and 16:
Executive Summary through mental he
Page 17 and 18:
value to society of the improvement
Page 19 and 20:
1. Introduction people in Australia
Page 21 and 22:
2. Evaluation Methodology 2.1 Aims
Page 23 and 24:
2. Evaluation Methodology Evaluatio
Page 25 and 26:
2. Evaluation Methodology Table 2.3
Page 27 and 28:
2. Evaluation Methodology Represent
Page 29 and 30:
3. Access and Engagement with Centr
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47 and 48:
Page 49 and 50:
Page 51 and 52:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Th
Page 53 and 54:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients 35
Page 55 and 56:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ch
Page 57 and 58:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients No
Page 59 and 60:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Th
Page 61 and 62:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Fi
Page 63 and 64:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients A
Page 65 and 66:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ta
Page 67 and 68:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients nu
Page 69 and 70:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients No
Page 71 and 72:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Ta
Page 73 and 74:
y three percentage points, and 2.1
Page 75 and 76:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients So
Page 77 and 78:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients I
Page 79 and 80:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients in
Page 81 and 82:
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Wh
Page 83 and 84:
5. Service Delivery Model For the a
Page 85 and 86:
5. Service Delivery Model the provi
Page 87 and 88:
5. Service Delivery Model headspace
Page 89 and 90:
5. Service Delivery Model services,
Page 91 and 92:
5. Service Delivery Model services
Page 93 and 94:
5. Service Delivery Model Further,
Page 95 and 96:
5. Service Delivery Model that we
Page 97 and 98:
5. Service Delivery Model is a cons
Page 99 and 100:
5. Service Delivery Model connectio
Page 101 and 102:
5. Service Delivery Model Table 5.2
Page 103 and 104:
5. Service Delivery Model Table 5.3
Page 105 and 106:
5. Service Delivery Model I don’t
Page 107 and 108:
5. Service Delivery Model group is
Page 109 and 110:
5. Service Delivery Model Figure 5.
Page 111 and 112:
6. The Costs of headspace One of th
Page 113 and 114:
6. The Costs of headspace Table 6.1
Page 115 and 116:
6. The Costs of headspace In-scope
Page 117 and 118:
6. The Costs of headspace Revenue/
Page 119 and 120:
6. The Costs of headspace Other gov
Page 121 and 122:
7. Conclusion The evaluation of hea
Page 123 and 124:
7. Conclusion treatment); however,
Page 125 and 126:
7. Conclusion Overall the evaluatio
Page 127 and 128: Appendix A Evaluation scope areas h
Page 129 and 130: Appendix B The current model of hea
Page 131 and 132: Appendix B and each SA3 in non-capi
Page 133 and 134: Appendix B chapter 39 . To determin
Page 135 and 136: Appendix B While there is an overal
Page 137 and 138: Appendix B Figure B3 describes the
Page 139 and 140: Appendix B Figure B5 Cost per young
Page 141 and 142: Appendix B The concept of access as
Page 143 and 144: Appendix B Figure B7 Heard of heads
Page 145 and 146: Figure B10 Proportion of headspace
Page 147 and 148: Appendix B Table B5 Females 18-25 y
Page 149 and 150: Appendix B following section. Figur
Page 151 and 152: Appendix B and less access to mains
Page 153 and 154: Appendix B Figure B17 Estimated pre
Page 155 and 156: Appendix B Figure B18 SA1s within 1
Page 157 and 158: Figure B20 Hypothetical allocation
Page 159 and 160: Appendix B The current model of cen
Page 161 and 162: Appendix B Current centre funding m
Page 163 and 164: Appendix B Evaluation of the curren
Page 165 and 166: Appendix B Level of funding availab
Page 167 and 168: Appendix B provide a method for ide
Page 169 and 170: Appendix B centres and Localities i
Page 171 and 172: Appendix B for greater flexibility
Page 173 and 174: Appendix B Additional consideration
Page 175 and 176: Appendix B of achieving more effici
Page 177: Appendix B • Used the simulation
Page 181 and 182: Appendix C Regarding gender, in bot
Page 183 and 184: Appendix C Figure C5 Total number o
Page 185 and 186: Appendix C Table C1 Information Sum
Page 187 and 188: Appendix C Data Cleaning and Analys
Page 189 and 190: Appendix C groups. The age and sex
Page 191 and 192: Appendix C Figure C8 Demographic ch
Page 193 and 194: Appendix C The KeySurvey software s
Page 195 and 196: Appendix C different client groups.
Page 197 and 198: Appendix D Round State Centre Name
Page 199 and 200: Appendix E Characteristics HS clien
Page 201 and 202: Table E4 Cell Sizes for Figure 3.4
Page 203 and 204: Appendix F Figure F1 Changes in K10
Page 205 and 206: Appendix F three SEIFA quintiles. A
Page 207 and 208: Appendix F Occasion of service inte
Page 209 and 210: Appendix F Table F1 Cell sizes for
Page 215 and 216: Appendix G Supplementary material f
Page 217 and 218: Appendix G Table G3 Round 3 (10 cen
Page 219 and 220: Appendix G Table G7 Round 7 (10 cen
Page 221 and 222: State (youth population) a headspac
Page 223 and 224: State (youth population) a headspac
Page 225 and 226: Appendix G Table G12 Round 11(16 ce
Page 227 and 228: Table G16 Additional youth populati
Page 229 and 230:
Round Region State Additional youth
Page 231 and 232:
State (youth population) a headspac
Page 233 and 234:
State (youth population) a headspac
Page 235 and 236:
Appendix G Figure G1 Percentage of
Page 237 and 238:
Page 239 and 240:
Page 241 and 242:
Page 243 and 244:
Appendix G Table G22 Australians 18
Page 245 and 246:
Appendix G Synthetic small area est
Page 247 and 248:
Appendix G Figure G16 Estimated pre
Page 249 and 250:
Page 251 and 252:
Page 253 and 254:
Appendix G Figure G22 SA1s within 1
Page 255 and 256:
Page 257 and 258:
Page 259 and 260:
Appendix G Table G25 Centres alloca
Page 261 and 262:
References Atkins, D.C., Bedics, J.
Page 263:
References Smith, E., Jones, T., Wa
show all

Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?