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

Recommendations

Info

3. Access and Engagement with Centres Levels of psychological distress headspace is being accessed by young people with significantly higher levels of psychological distress than those in the general population. Seven in every 10 young people attending headspace had high or very high levels of psychological distress when they first sought help (based on the Kessler 10 18 ). Large numbers of young people (43.4% of 12-17 year old clients and 50.9% of the 18-25 year olds) had very high levels of psychological distress, compared to only 6.5% in the general population. The mean K10 score of young people on entry to headspace services in the 2013/14 financial year was 28.8 (a score indicating a high degree of psychological distress). While no program model and client cohort can be directly compared to headspace, the Australian Mental Health National Outcomes and Casemix Collection submissions from each state and territory in Australia recorded an average K10 score of 26.8 for Australian young people (aged 15-24 years, 2012/13 financial year) upon admission to ambulatory mental health services. 19 The mean K10 score for consumers of all ages accessing services through the ATAPS program 20 prior to treatment was 31 (Bassilios et al, 2013). These comparisons are provided to assist in interpretation of the findings; however, AMHOCN and ATAPS data is not collected in the same way as headspace and the cohorts may be quite different. Figure 3.3 shows the K10 scores at presentation for headspace clients by age, sex and sexuality. Older clients had higher levels of psychological distress than younger clients, females had higher levels than males, and LGBTI clients had higher levels than heterosexual clients although male LGBTI clients below the age of 19 had lower levels than heterosexual females. Female LGBTI clients had the highest levels at all ages except for the youngest age group. Figure 3.3 Average K10 score at presentation by age, sex-and sexuality, headspace clients 2013/14 Note: LGBTI include young persons who reported their gender as trans or intersex and their sexuality as lesbian, gay, bisexual, questioning and other. Not all young people record their age, gender, sexuality and K10 scores within the hCSA. Young people aged less than 12 years and above 25 have been excluded. Cell sizes are provided in Appendix E. Source: Authors calculations from hCSA data. 18 As described in Table 2.3, the K10 is a self-report, 10 item questionnaire that measures psychological distress based on questions about anxiety and depressive symptoms that a person has experienced in the past 4 weeks. The K10 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). 19 Derived from the Australian Mental Health Outcomes and Classification Network, AMHOCN-NOCC, Standard Reports data cube; https://reports.amhocn.org). 20 The ATAPS program was introduced by the Australian Government in response to low treatment rates for common mental disorders. The mean age was 38. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 24
3. Access and Engagement with Centres Social and occupational functioning Young people attending headspace aged 12-17 years were most likely to be in education only (70.9%) or studying and working (19.2%). A small number (1.6%) were working only, and 8.3% were neither in education nor work. Older young people (18-25 year olds) were much more likely to be disengaged from economic participation. One in three were neither studying nor working (33%). Of the remaining 18-25 year olds, 23.8% were studying only, 20.1% were working only, and 23.1% were studying and working. Despite the majority of young people still being engaged in education and/or work, most young people (60.2%) on first presentation to headspace had at least some difficulty in social, occupational or educational functioning (as scored by practitioners using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Score, SOFAS) 21 . According to the SOFAS assessment on first presentation, around one in four young people had a serious impairment in functioning, 13.6% had no more than a slight impairment, 1.9% were experiencing an inability to function in almost all areas, and 0.1% were not maintaining minimal personal hygiene. On average, social and occupational functioning was higher for younger males and females when they first presented at headspace (Figure 3.4). The older the young person was when they first presented at headspace, the worse their functioning. Average SOFAS scores for male and female headspace clients remained relatively consistent from the ages of 19 to 25 years. Figure 3.4 Average SOFAS scores at presentation by age and gender, headspace clients 2013/14 Notes: SOFAS is generally reported by the service provider at each occasion of service. Cell sizes are provided in Appendix E. Source: Authors calculations from hCSA data. Levels of functioning at presentation to headspace also differed by sexuality (Figure 3.5). SOFAS scores of heterosexual females were quite stable across all age cohorts throughout adolescence, while members of the other groups (LGBTI females and LGBTI and heterosexual males) came to headspace with varying scores. In general, the older the heterosexual males were when they first visited headspace, the poorer their functioning. LGBTI males and females followed a similar pattern to heterosexual males, but with slightly more fluctuation. The poor functioning of 12-14 year old LGBTI males and females may be linked to the onset of puberty, and the decline at 18-20 years may be linked with the transition from school to further education or employment. 21 Data on young people’s social and occupational functioning is collected at each visit to a headspace centre. During visits, clinicians rate clients’ level of impairment due to mental and physical health problems using the Social and Occupational Functioning Assessment Scales (SOFAS). 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 scores are recorded at almost all (88 %) occasions of service. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 25
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 33: 3. Access and Engagement with Centr
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 and 178:
Appendix B • Used the simulation
Page 179 and 180:
Appendix C information relating to
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 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
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:
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:
Page 233 and 234:
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?

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?