Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35457674›Full record

ReviewInternational journal of environmental research and public health2022

Fit for Purpose-Re-Designing Australia's Mental Health Information System.

Sebastian Rosenberg, Luis Salvador-Carulla, Graham Meadows, Ian Hickie

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Review
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Health Statistics in Australia: What We Know and Do Not Know.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Sebastian RosenbergBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Level 4, 94 Mallett Street, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-3374-8694
Luis Salvador-CarullaMental Health Policy Unit, Health Research Institute, Faculty of Health, University of Canberra, Canberra, ACT 2617, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-5742-9866
Graham MeadowsDepartment of Psychiatry, Monash Health, Melbourne, VIC 3168, Australia.
Ian HickieBrain and Mind Centre, University of Sydney, Level 4, 94 Mallett Street, Sydney, NSW 2050, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundMonitoring and reporting mental health is complex. Australia's first National Mental Health Strategy in 1992 included a new national commitment to accountability and data collection in mental health. This article provides a narrative review of thirty years of experience. MATERIALS AND

methodsThis review considers key documents, policies, plans and strategies in relation to the evolution of mental health data and reporting. Documents produced by the Federal and the eight state and territory governments are considered, as well as publications produced by key information agencies, statutory authorities and others. A review of this literature demonstrates both its abundance and limitations.

resultsAustralia's approach to mental health reporting is characterised by duplication and a lack of clarity. The data available fail to do justice to the mental health services provided in Australia. Mental health data collection and reporting processes are centrally driven, top-down and activity-focused, largely eschewing actual health outcomes, the social determinants of mental health. There is little, if any, link to clearly identifiable service user or carer priorities. Consequently, it is difficult to link this process longitudinally to clinical or systemic quality improvement. Initial links between the focus of national reform efforts and mental health data collection were evident, but these links have weakened over time. Changes to governance and reporting, including under COVID, have made the task of delivering accountability for mental health more difficult.

conclusionAustralia's current approach is not fit for purpose. It is at a pivotal point in mental health reform, with new capacity to use modelled data to simulate prospective mental health reform options. By drawing on these new techniques and learning the lessons of the past, Australia (and other nations) can design and implement more effective systems of planning, reporting and accountability for mental health.

Indexed as

COVID-19Health Information SystemsMental Health ServicesHealth Care ReformHealth PolicyHumansProspective Studiesaccountabilitymental healthpolicy developmentquality improvement

Identifiers

PMID35457674
PMCPMC9029394

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.