Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?
Evaluation-of-headspace-program
Evaluation-of-headspace-program
You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles
YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.
4. Outcomes of <strong>headspace</strong><br />
Clients<br />
The primary focus of the evaluation is <strong>to</strong> assess the effectiveness of the <strong>headspace</strong> program in<br />
achieving outcomes for <strong>young</strong> people receiving <strong>headspace</strong> services. Three key research questions<br />
guided our analysis:<br />
• How do <strong>young</strong> <strong>people’s</strong> outcomes change after using <strong>headspace</strong> services?<br />
• How do the outcomes of <strong>young</strong> people using <strong>headspace</strong> services differ from the outcomes<br />
of <strong>young</strong> people across the population not using <strong>headspace</strong> services?<br />
• According <strong>to</strong> clients, parents/carers and service providers, how and why has <strong>headspace</strong><br />
contributed <strong>to</strong>/not contributed <strong>to</strong> changes in client outcomes?<br />
To answer the first two questions, we used the program minimum data set (hCSA) and survey data<br />
collected from a sample of <strong>headspace</strong> clients and a comparison group of <strong>young</strong> people. The final<br />
question is answered by drawing on qualitative data collected from program stakeholders.<br />
hCSA data was used <strong>to</strong> examine changes in outcome indica<strong>to</strong>rs for clients at different points in<br />
time throughout their <strong>headspace</strong> treatment. The hCSA data is advantageous in that it is population<br />
level data. While the hCSA contains a smaller number of outcome indica<strong>to</strong>rs than the <strong>young</strong> people<br />
surveys, it is a valuable source of data that provides specific information about services accessed<br />
by clients as well as the dosage and duration of treatment. The survey data enabled evalua<strong>to</strong>rs <strong>to</strong><br />
examine changes in multiple outcome indica<strong>to</strong>rs for <strong>headspace</strong> clients, and <strong>to</strong> compare these with<br />
changes for a comparative group of <strong>young</strong> people. The sample sizes differ for different outcome<br />
areas. This is a result of both the data source and the completion and quality of the data within the<br />
datasets.<br />
As outlined in Chapter 2, the outcomes analysis uses two complementary measures of effectiveness,<br />
and draws on measures of both statistical and clinical significance. These methods are also<br />
supplemented by observed patterns of change in client outcomes throughout their <strong>headspace</strong><br />
treatment and triangulated (where feasible) with other analyses. The two primary methodological<br />
approaches that have been used are:<br />
• The <strong>difference</strong>-in-<strong>difference</strong> (DID) approach, and<br />
• The clinically significant change (CSC) method.<br />
The <strong>young</strong> people survey data has been analysed using the DID approach – a method of analysis<br />
outlined in Chapter 2. This approach compares the results of a sub-set of the <strong>headspace</strong> client<br />
population (the intervention group) with two comparison groups of <strong>young</strong> people (those that have<br />
received an alternative form of mental health treatment, and those that have received no treatment).<br />
To achieve a closer alignment between the treatment and comparison groups, the samples were<br />
matched on four key variables using propensity score matching (K10 score, age, gender and days out<br />
of role).<br />
The hCSA data was analysed using the Clinically Significant Change (CSC) method as outlined<br />
Chapter 2. The CSC method focuses on clients’ changes in psychological distress and classifies<br />
individuals along a continuum from a clinically significant improvement <strong>to</strong> a clinically significant<br />
decline. Significance includes two measures of change – a reliable change and a clinically significant<br />
Social Policy Research Centre 2015<br />
<strong>headspace</strong> Evaluation Final Report<br />
41