ArticleInternational journal of mental health nursing2025
Consumer Experiences of the Australian Stepped Care Model in Primary Mental Health Care: A Qualitative Study.
Article in International journal of mental health nursing, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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.
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.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Working Together to Deliver Person-Centred Care Within the Stepped Care Model: An Australian Multidisciplinary Perspective.International journal of mental health nursing · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Mental illness remains a significant public health challenge in Australia, affecting nearly half of the adult population and placing a considerable strain on the healthcare system. The Australian government has implemented the Stepped Care Model (SCM) within primary mental health care to address this issue to improve service access, efficiency, and outcomes. This study explores the experiences of nine consumers (also referred to as patients) who received care under the SCM, focusing on their perspectives on accessing and navigating mental health services. Ethical approval was obtained from the Federation University Human Research Ethics Committee, and measures were implemented to ensure the privacy and confidentiality of all participants. Through a qualitative thematic analysis, five key themes emerged: (1) the mental health impact of life events; (2) hurdles in accessing care; (3) barriers to optimal care; (4) positive experiences with individual practitioners; and (5) mixed sentiments on the effectiveness of the SCM. While participants acknowledged the holistic and interdisciplinary benefits of the SCM, some expressed frustrations with waiting times, limited service capacity, and rigid session limits. Positive therapeutic outcomes were often attributed to empathetic, personalised care from individual practitioners, emphasising the need for continuity in therapeutic relationships. However, participants with complex mental health conditions felt underserved by the model's lack of flexibility. These findings highlight the need to address systemic barriers and enhance the SCM's adaptability to serve individuals with varying mental health needs better. Future research should explore longer-term interventions and more flexible care pathways to optimise the effectiveness of the SCM in Australia.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.