How does mental health status relate to accessibility and remoteness?

Abstract

Objective: To determine whether mental illness is associated with accessibility and remoteness. Design: A cross‐sectional, population‐based, computer‐assisted telephone interview survey, stratified by Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) categories. Setting: Secondary analysis of data collected from 2545 South Australian adults in October and November 2000. Outcome measures: Psychological distress and depression as determined by the Kessler 10 Psychological Distress Scale, the SF‐12 measure of health status, and self‐reported mental illness diagnosed by a doctor in the previous 12 months. Results: Overall, mental illness prevalence estimates were similar using the three measures of psychological distress (10.5%), clinical depression (12.9%) and self‐reported mental health problem (12.7%). For each measure, there was no statistically significant variation in prevalence across ARIA categories, except for a lower than expected prevalence of depression (7.7%) in the “accessible” category. There was no trend suggesting higher levels of mental illness among residents of rural and remote regions. Conclusions: The prevalence rates of psychological distress, depression and self‐reported mental illness are high. However, we found no evidence that the prevalence of these conditions varies substantially across ARIA categories in South Australia. This finding may challenge existing stereotypes about higher levels of mental illness outside metropolitan Australia.

Socio-demographic factors and psychological distress in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Australian adults aged 18-64 years: analysis of national survey data

“…In a study of non-metropolitan areas of New South Wales, Kelly et al found lower mean K10 scores in remote areas than in very remote or inner or outer regional areas; mean scores were similar for males and females [38]. Although non-significant, a similar trend was evident in South Australia with lower mean K10 scores in accessible/moderately accessible areas compared to highly accessible and remote/very remote areas [39]. In the US, Dhingra and colleagues found that, among those in the 2007 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS) (with a landline telephone), urban residents were more likely than rural residents to have mild (K6 7-12 out of 24) or serious (K6 13+) psychological distress after adjustment for socio-demographic characteristics [40].…”

Screening for depression and anxiety: correlates of non‐response and cohort attrition in the Netherlands Study of Depression and Anxiety (NESDA)

“…The questionnaire chosen for NESDA is composed of the 10 questions of the Kessler-10 (K-10) , and fi ve additional questions asking for the presence (yes/no) of a panic attack, social phobia, agoraphobia, general anxiety or nervousness, and psychotropic medication use during the last month ( Table 1). The K-10 is a short self-administered scale used for the detection of psychological distress, and has been applied in large epidemiologic studies (Eckert et al, 2004). It has proven screening qualities for affective disorders (Furukawa et al, 2003;Kessler et al, 2003).…”

Urban–rural differences in the nature and prevalence of mental ill‐health in adults with intellectual disabilities

“…Although the majority of literature found an association with urbanicity and higher rate of mental health problem as described above, Peters & Jackson (2005) reported several studies in which no conclusive evidence of an association with urban/ rural residence could be found for psychiatric morbidity (Romans-Clarkson et al 1990;Blazer et al 1994;Parikh et al 1996;Eckert et al 2004).…”