Objective To estimate the prevalence of disordered eating (DE) among Australian adolescents and examine associations with clinical mental health problems, problems with functioning, and help received. Method We analyzed data from the Young Minds Matter survey (n = 2,298, 13–17 years). We derived an index of DE severity with four levels: (1) no DE; (2) subclinical DE; (3) suspected eating disorder; and (4) lifetime eating disorder diagnosis. Results In 2013–2014, 31.6% (95%CI 35.5–39.9) of Australian adolescents experienced DE, comprising 25.7% (95%CI 23.9–37.6) with subclinical DE, 11.0% (95%CI 9.7–12.6) with a suspected eating disorder, and 0.9% (95%CI 0.6–1.3) with a lifetime eating disorder diagnosis. DE was more common among girls (41.4%, 95%CI 37.9–44.4) than boys (34.0%, 95%CI 31.1–37.0; p = .002). Adolescents with DE, compared to those without, were more likely to experience clinical mental health problems and problems with functioning. Most adolescents with DE reported help‐seeking in the past year, commonly self‐help; around 40% used school‐based, primary care or specialist services (i.e., formal services). In multivariate analyses, the use of more specialized and intensive services was associated with more severe DE, greater problems with functioning, female gender, and 12‐month mental disorder or subthreshold mental disorder symptoms. Discussion The implementation of mental health promotion and prevention efforts for DE, and screening for DE in school and primary care settings, may facilitate detection and appropriate help‐seeking among adolescents with DE.
IntroductionThe Health of the Nation Outcome Scales (HoNOS) for adults, and equivalent measures for children and adolescents and older people, are widely used in clinical practice and research contexts to measure mental health and functional outcomes. Additional HoNOS measures have been developed for special populations and applications. Stakeholders require synthesised information about the measurement properties of these measures to assess whether they are fit for use with intended service settings and populations and to establish performance benchmarks. This planned systematic review will critically appraise evidence on the measurement properties of the HoNOS family of measures.Methods and analysisJournal articles meeting inclusion criteria will be identified via a search of seven electronic databases: MEDLINE via EBSCOhost, PsycINFO via APA PsycNET, Embase via Elsevier, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature via EBSCOhost, Web of Science via Thomson Reuters, Google Scholar and the Cochrane Library. Variants of ‘Health of the Nation Outcome Scales’ or ‘HoNOS’ will be searched as text words. No restrictions will be placed on setting or language of publication. Reference lists of relevant studies and reviews will be scanned for additional eligible studies. Appraisal of reliability, validity, responsiveness and interpretability will be guided by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments checklist. Feasibility/utility will be appraised using definitions and criteria derived from previous reviews. For reliability studies, we will also apply the Guidelines for Reporting Reliability and Agreement Studies to assess quality of reporting. Results will be synthesised narratively, separately for each measure, and by subgroup (eg, treatment setting, rater profession/experience or training) where possible. Meta-analyses will be undertaken where data are adequate.Ethics and disseminationEthics approval is not required as no primary data will be collected. Outcomes will be disseminated to stakeholders via reports, journal articles and presentations at meetings and conferences.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42017057871.
Background Psychological interventions (PIs) are good practice treatment for both subthreshold and diagnosed mental disorders. Australia has implemented major reforms to expand the provision of subsidised psychological services for individuals with a diagnosed mental disorder. But there are gaps in knowledge about demand for PIs (i.e., use of and perceived need for PIs) across the population. This study uses nationally representative survey data from the 2007 Australian National Survey of Mental Health and Wellbeing to analyse demand for PIs. It also provides a method for analysing survey data to estimate demand for PIs when new survey data becomes available, along with suggestions to inform future survey development. Methods Nationally representative community survey respondents (n = 8841, 16–85 years) indicated their perceived need for nine types of help for mental health problems in the past 12 months, including three PIs (cognitive behavioural therapy, psychotherapy, and counselling), and whether these needs were unmet, partially met, or fully met. Types of help were grouped as: PIs only; PIs plus other; and other only. Chi-square analyses were used to examine the association between type of intervention, sociodemographic and clinical factors, and type of professional consulted; multinomial logistic regression models were used to examine predictors of type of intervention(s) received. Results 7.9% (95%CI: 7.2–8.6) received PIs. Receipt of PIs was positively associated with higher education and consulting a mental health specialist. Twice as many respondents received PIs plus medication as compared to PIs only (4.2% vs. 2.0%). Almost half (45.4, 95%CI 36.5–54.6) incurred out-of-pocket costs for treatment. The most common reason for partially met need for PIs was cost (24.8, 95%CI 17.2–34.3); for unmet need, it was preference for self-management (33.9, 95%CI 21.2–49.5). Perceived unmet need for PIs only (3.1, 95%CI 2.1–4.6) or PIs plus other interventions (5.2, 95%CI 3.9–6.9%) was lower than for other interventions only (22.8, 95%CI 18.7–27.6). Conclusions Continued reforms in Australia means that on-going monitoring of demand for PIs, using nationally representative data, is required. This study provides a baseline for comparison of the long-term effects of these reforms; this comparison may be undertaken using data from the third iteration of Australia’s NSMHWB, due for completion in 2021–22.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.