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

Recommendations

Info

4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Figure 4.10 Prevalence of self-harm in the last year across grouped K10 changes: by intervention survey wave and gender Note: Data for this analysis is sourced from the headspace intervention survey. Estimates of clinically significant change were tested for the survey data and were shown to align well with hCSA data. Information about self-harm was specifically collected within the survey data and is not available in the hCSA dataset. Sample sizes can be found in Appendix F. Source: Authors’ calculations from headspace intervention survey data. Economic and Social Participation The evaluation examined the degree to which headspace clients reported a change in the number of days out of role and days cut back in the last four weeks due to psychological distress. Clients were again categorised according to the level of change in K10 scores between survey waves, and for each grouping, the average number of lost days were calculated. Figure 4.11 reports on the number of days in the last two weeks that headspace clients were totally unable to work or study because of psychological distress, using information from the hCSA administrative survey. The findings show a decrease in the number of days lost for those who experienced a clinical improvement in K10 from 3.8 to 1.6 days. Those who showed a reliable improvement in K10 also saw a similar reduction of days lost between their first and last occasion of service – from 4.7 to 2.5 days in the last two weeks. Figure 4.11 Number of days lost in last two weeks due to psychological distress, by K10 change and OoS interval Note: Young people attending headspace were asked how many days in the last two weeks they were unable to carry out most of their usual activities at school, study, work or home. The available responses included 1. None; 2. 1-3 days; 3. 4-6 days; 4. 7-9 days; or 5. Most or all days. A midpoint was used to derive an average days lost measure. Cell sizes can be found in Appendix F. Source: Authors’ calculations from hCSA administrative data. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 52
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients A similar pattern was evident for clients and the days cut back. headspace clients who improved clinically, when compared with a normative population, reported a reduction in the number of days cut back from 9.4 on average in each month to 3.1. Those who showed a reliably significant change also saw gains in economic participation – from 8.4 days reduced activity on average to 6.7. Young people who improved statistically insignificantly, and those with no change in their K10 score, also reported an increased ability to participate in daily activities. Young people that reported greater psychological distress over the period reported increases in the average number of days cut back. This number was highest on average for those young people whose mental health functioning, as indicated by the K10 score, declined significantly. These results further demonstrate outcomes for young people and the importance of considering multiple outcome measures when assessing program effect. Figure 4.12 Number of days in last four weeks cut down due to psychological distress, by K10 change and OOS interval Note: Data for this analysis is sourced from the headspace intervention survey. Estimates of clinically significant change were tested for the survey data and were shown to align well with hCSA data. Information about the number of days cut back was specifically collected within the survey data and is not available in the hCSA dataset. Sample sizes can be found in Appendix F. Source: Authors’ calculations from hCSA administrative data. Social inclusion Social inclusion indicators show that young women and men who demonstrated a clinical or reliable improvement in psychological distress between waves 1 and 2 also reported improvement in how supported they felt and in their levels of socialisation with friends. In wave 1, 39.2% of young women who improved clinically or significantly reported feeling supported. By wave 2, this rate increased to over two-thirds. Young men experienced similar improvements in feeling supported. Those that experienced no significant change in their levels of psychological distress also reported no change in feeling supported. Young people with increased levels of stress also felt less supported; this was particularly the case for young women. Findings for the relationship between changes in psychological distress and the level of socialising online are mixed. Groups with improved mental health functioning reported relatively little change in their online socialisation practices. Young men whose levels of distress fell over the course of their time in headspace also tended to show increased levels of online activity on average, from 62% to 71%. However, little change was observed among women whose psychological distress improved. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 53
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 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: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Fi
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?