Letters
Mental health
Volume 200 - Issue 8

headspace - Australia's innovation in youth mental health: who are the clients and why are they presenting?

Authors:  Ian B Hickie, Elizabeth M Scott and Nicholas Glozier

Med J Aust 2014; 200 (8): 452-454. || doi: 10.5694/mja14.00145
Published online: 5 May 2014
Comparing data between centres and nationally is complex but necessary
Download PDF (133 KB)
Share: Share on Blue Sky Share on Facebook Share on LinkedIn Share by email

To the Editor: We commend Rickwood and colleagues1 for presenting aggregated data from headspace centres. However, to judge whether headspace is meeting its key policy objectives, more detailed information is required. No performance benchmarks were proposed for the national program or for the constituent centres. Specifically, the variance in key characteristics (age, sex, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations, rurality, socioeconomic status and current disability) of young people attending the individual centres was not described. As headspace centres were initially placed in areas of need (ie, non-urban, low socioeconomic status, fewer private medical or psychological services, or high Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander populations), one might expect to see evidence of enhanced access for those with disability or financial hardship. For example, at the University of Sydney-managed headspace sites, 25% of young people were receiving financial assistance and “the same fraction (were) completely disconnected from employment or education” (emphasis added).2 Internationally, youth-targeted mental health services are being encouraged to focus on such disadvantaged individuals.3 In Australia, 12% of youth are in this category, and the proportion varies significantly by geographical region (7%–35%).4 These proportions are not the same as those reported by Rickwood et al1 (29% in the headspace cohort and 27% in the Australian population), where the measure used appears to be that of not participating fully in employment or education. Given that the economic and social justifications for early intervention are focused on enhancing such participation rates,5 clarification of the metrics being reported by headspace is essential.

Authors

  • Ian B Hickie
  • Elizabeth M Scott
  • Nicholas Glozier
  • 1. University of Sydney, Sydney, NSW.

Correspondence: ian.hickie@sydney.edu.au

Competing interests

Ian Hickie is a National Health and Medical Research Council Senior Principal Research Fellow and a National Mental Health Commissioner. He was a Director of headspace until 2012. He has led community-based and pharmaceutical industry-supported education programs related to anxiety, depression and psychosis. Current investigator-initiated studies in depression and circadian systems at the Brain & Mind Research Institute are supported by Servier. He has received honoraria or travel support for participation in educational seminars related to depression, youth mental health or circadian rhythms research and clinical practice. Nicholas Glozier has served on an advisory board for Lundbeck and has received honoraria for presenting depression, sleep and functional-related presentations for Servier and Lundbeck.

References

View this article on Wiley Online Library

More like this

Mental health Perspective 20 July 2026 Open Access

Reorienting Allied Health Into Community-Based Care for People Experiencing Trauma and Social Disadvantage

Simon Rosenbaum, Grace McKeon, Gulsah Kurt, Oscar Lederman, Kemi Wright, Sabuj Kanti Mistry, Jackie E. Curtis, Philip B. Ward, Zachary Steel, Hamish Fibbins, Rachel Morell, Melissa C. Eaton, Andrew Watkins, Ben Harris-Roxas, Brendan Goodger, Eleanor Beck, Megan Teychenne, Joseph Firth, Davy Vancampfort, David Burns, Russell Roberts, Tristan Favaloro, Danielle Weber, Rosanna Barbero, Vasili Maroulis, Melissa Holmes, Stefan Mackenzie, Chiara Mastrogiovanni, Afsana Anwar, Uzma Choudhry, Catherine Sherrington, Jane Currie, Thomas Gadsden, Scott Teasdale

View more