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

Recommendations

Info

4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Psychological Distress As shown in Table 4.7 below, the mean commencing K10 score was similar for the ‘headspace treatment’ group and the matched ‘no treatment’ group (28.7). A reduction in the average K10 score between Wave 1 and Wave 2 was observed for both groups. The mean K10 score for the ‘headspace treatment’ group decreased by 3 percentage points, while the mean score decreased by 1.6 percentage points for the matched ‘no treatment’ group – both changes are significant at the 1% level. The effect size of the change over time, as measured by Cohen’s d, shows a bigger effect for the ‘headspace treatment’ group (-0.34) than that observed for the matched ‘no treatment’ group (-0.21). The observed difference-in-differences shows that the ‘headspace treatment’ group had a 1.39 percentage points greater reduction in psychological distress when compared to the matched ‘no treatment’ group. This result is significant at the 5% level. The effect size of these differences is relatively weak, with Cohen’s d = -0.16. Turning to the distributional analysis (Table 4.7), a considerable proportion of young people in the ‘headspace treatment’ group transitioned to low or moderate K10 groups over the survey period. Young people in the low K10 classification increased by 6 percentage points and those in the moderate grouping by 9.2 percentage points. Both increases are highly statistically significant. A highly significant decrease in the proportion of young people in the very high K10 grouping was also observed. The matched ‘no treatment’ group recorded a statistically significant reduction in young people within the very high K10 classification between waves 1 and 2; however, this reduction was lower than that experienced by young people treated at headspace. Difference-in-difference results show that three of the four K10 groupings demonstrated more improvement for young people treated at headspace compared with those with similar commencing K10 scores and distributions who had no treatment. These results are statistically significant at the 5% level. Effect sizes of these differences are weak, with Cohen’s d = 0.12. Incapacity The ‘headspace treatment’ group displayed a general reduction in incapacity as measured by the number of days out of role (DOR) and the days cut back (DCB) (Table 4.7). There was an average decrease in days out of role from 2.8 to 2.3 and days cut back from 7.9 to 5.9 for the ‘headspace treatment’ group between Waves 1 and 2. Both differences are significant at the 1% level. The matched ‘no treatment’ group also experienced a decrease in the days out of role between the two waves, from 2.8 to 2.6, which is significant at the 5% level. Days cut back increased slightly for this group; however, the result is not statistically significant. Effect sizes for the ‘headspace treatment’ group are larger than that observed for the ‘no treatment’ group for these indicators of incapacity caused by mental health issues. The difference-in-difference results illustrate that the ‘headspace treatment’ group does slightly better in terms of the reduction of days out of role and days cut back when compared to the matched ‘no treatment’ group between the survey waves. These results are significant at the 1% level. The distributional analysis of days out of role reveals an overall improvement, particularly in the proportion of young people who reported zero days incapacitated by mental health in the last 30 days. This effect is much stronger for the ‘headspace treatment’ group than the matched ‘no treatment’ group (Cohen’s d = 0.37 and 0.18 respectively). Difference-in-difference results show that the ‘headspace treatment’ group increased reports of zero days out of role by 8.6 percentage points more than the group that received ‘no treatment’ over time. This result is statistically significant. A greater reduction in reports of between 15-28 days out of role was observed for the ‘headspace treatment’ group when compared to the ‘no treatment’ group – 4.84 percentage points. This result is also highly statistically reliable and the effect size is estimated at -0.18. Days cut back show similar results, with greater improvements for the ‘headspace treatment’ group in this outcome indicator when compared with the matched ‘no treatment’ group. Of note, however, are the differences in the wave 1 distributions of each treatment group, indicating that the ‘headspace treatment’ group is likely to be experiencing more complex issues, even if the K10 measure is similar. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 60
4. Outcomes of headspace Clients Table 4.7 Changes in outcomes, ‘headspace treatment’ group and matched ‘no treatment’ group Note: Average changes in outcomes are presented for those observations that are present in both waves, have K10 observations in both waves, and have a propensity-score match from the ‘no treatment’ comparison group. Total sample will vary for each indicator due to non-responses. N=631 represents young people who met the criteria for inclusion in treatment groups and were able to be matched according to the propensity score matching technique described in Appendix C. Significance at the 1% and 5% levels are denoted by *** and ** respectively. Source: Authors calculations from headspace evaluation survey data. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 61
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 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: 4. Outcomes of headspace Clients No
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?