Mental Health in Australia: Psychological Distress Reported in Six Consecutive Cross-Sectional National Surveys From 2001 to 2018

Abstract

PurposeTo examine Australian psychological distress trends from 2001 to 2017/18, including analysis by age, sex, location, and household income.MethodsSecondary analysis of the working age population (18–64 years) in six successive representative national health surveys. Measures were prevalence of psychological distress at very-high symptom level (defined by a Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) score of 30 or more) and combined high/very-high level (K10 score of 22 or more). Very-high K10 scores are associated with mental health problems meeting diagnostic thresholds in past year.ResultsFrom 2001 to 2017/18 Australian rates of K10 very-high distress rose significantly from 3.8 to 5.1% and combined high/very-high from 13.2 to 14.8%. In women aged 55–64, very-high distress rose significantly and substantially from 3.5 to 7.2% and high/very-high distress from 12.4 to 18.7%. In men aged 25–34, very-high distress increased from 2.1 to 4.0% and high/very-high from 10.6 to 11.5%. Income was strongly and inversely associated with distress (lowest vs. highest quintile adjusted OR 11.4). An apparent association of increased distress with regional location disappeared with adjustment for income.ConclusionAustralia’s population level of psychological distress increased significantly from 2001–2017/18, with levels highest in women and with rates inversely associated with income. This is likely to be indicative of increased community rates of mental disorders. Given that this has occurred whilst mental healthcare expenditure has increased, there is an urgent need to reconsider how best to respond to mental illness, including targeting the most vulnerable based on social determinants such as age, gender, and lower incomes.

Equitable psychiatry, telehealth, and the COVID-19 pandemic: Analysis of national data

“…Data points are plotted using the individual's rank (scaled between 0 and 1) on the horizontal axis, and cumulative consumption of the health intervention (scaled between 0 and 1) on the vertical access. The graph is considered in relation to the diagonal between (0,0) and (1,1). A graph lying exactly on the diagonal represents a steady consumption of the health intervention where the rank conveys no advantage or disadvantage.…”

“…Declining mental health in Australia, the impact of COVID-and expanding telehealth Although there have been large increases in funding for mental health care, psychological distress levels, strongly associated with mental disorders, have been increasing in Australia over the last two decades (1,2). Contributing to the failure to improve population mental health outcomes is an inequitable distribution of service provision (3).…”

Appraising Evidence-Based Mental Health and Psychosocial Support (MHPSS) Guidelines—PART II: A Content Analysis with Implications for Disaster Risk Reduction

“…This contextual "reinvention exercise" is relevant to each of the models depicted in Figure 2. From a resilience or vulnerability perspective (Model 1), people's susceptibility to being harmed or their ability to cope, benefitting from relative support in their own supportive environment, differs within and between subgroups and populations, even regionally, and changes over time [68][69][70]. Resilience cannot be seen separately from cultural and socioeconomic conditions at the individual, community, and societal level.…”

“It’s important to manage our stress”: Mental health advice in the Australian print news media during the COVID-19 pandemic

“…In Australia, the 12-month prevalence of mental disorder (as measured by the CIDI - Composite International Diagnostic Interview) has remained stable since 1997, at around 20 percent of the population ( Australian Bureau of Statistics, 2021 ; Korten and Henderson, 2000 ; Slade et al, 2009 ). Meanwhile, the prevalence of high or very high psychological distress among the population (as measured by the K10 scale) increased significantly between 2001 and 2018 ( Enticott et al, 2022 ). This is despite per capita expenditure on treatment for mental illness more than doubling between 1999 and 2016 ( Meadows et al, 2018 ).…”