Literature DB >> 22860795

Better Outcomes or Better Access -- which was better for mental health care?

Christopher M Harrison1, Helena C Britt, Janice Charles.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To compare the Better Access to Psychiatrists, Psychologists and General Practitioners through the MBS initiative with the Better Outcomes in Mental Health Care initiative, to test contentions that Better Access is used more often by advantaged major city patients and that the role of GPs has been reduced to that of referrers. DESIGN AND
SETTING: Analysis of Bettering the Evaluation and Care of Health data relating to management of depression from April 1998 to March 2011, with the Better Outcomes period defined as January 2002 to October 2006 and the Better Access period defined as November 2006 to December 2011. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Rates of depression management by GPs, including rates of mental health care item claims, referrals, prescribing and counselling, by patient location and socioeconomic group.
RESULTS: During the study period, rates of depression management increased and rates of referrals to psychiatrists halved. Compared with Better Outcomes, Better Access resulted in: increased depression management for advantaged major city and disadvantaged non-major city patients (16.0% and 21.5% increases, respectively); a small decrease in prescribing for advantaged major city patients; decreases in GP counselling; increases in referrals to psychologists for all patient groups (three- to fourfold increases), with advantaged major city patients referred more often than patients in other groups; and increases in mental health care item claims for all patient groups (44-65-fold increases), with more claims for advantaged major city patients than both non-major city patient groups.
CONCLUSION: Far from becoming "glorified referrers", GPs remain heavily involved in the management of depression. Better Access brought about an enormous increase in access to primary care management of depression, although advantaged major city patients gained most. Any changes to the system must not compromise the strong improvements in access that have occurred for all groups.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 22860795     DOI: 10.5694/mja12.10555

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Med J Aust        ISSN: 0025-729X            Impact factor:   7.738


  6 in total

1.  Mental health service use and need for care of Australians without diagnoses of mental disorders: findings from a large epidemiological survey.

Authors:  I Bobevski; A Rosen; G Meadows
Journal:  Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci       Date:  2017-06-19       Impact factor: 6.892

2.  Differences in Use of Government Subsidised Mental Health Services by Men and Women with Psychological Distress: A Study of 229,628 Australians Aged 45 Years and Over.

Authors:  Xenia Dolja-Gore; Deborah Loxton; Catherine D'Este; Fiona Blyth; Julie Byles
Journal:  Community Ment Health J       Date:  2018-04-17

3.  Service use for mental health problems in people with delusional-like experiences: a nationwide population based survey.

Authors:  Sukanta Saha; John McGrath; James Scott
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-08-21       Impact factor: 3.240

4.  Primary care access for mental illness in Australia: Patterns of access to general practice from 2006 to 2016.

Authors:  Louise M Farrer; Jennie Walker; Christopher Harrison; Michelle Banfield
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2018-06-01       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  Romanian GPs Involvement in Caring for the Mental Health Problems of the Elderly Population: A Cross-Sectional Study.

Authors:  Raluca Sfetcu; Daciana Toma; Catalina Tudose; Cristian Vladescu
Journal:  Front Neurol       Date:  2021-06-24       Impact factor: 4.003

6.  Improving depression outcomes among Australian primary care patients: protocol for a cluster randomised controlled trial.

Authors:  Mariko Carey; Rob Sanson-Fisher; Nick Zwar; Danielle Mazza; Graham Meadows; Leon Piterman; Amy Waller; Justin Walsh; Christopher Oldmeadow; Simon Deeming; Andrew Searles; Frans Henskens; Brian Kelly
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 2.692

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.