Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40789817›Full record

ReviewSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology2026

Identifying psychological distress data available in nationally representative surveys: A scoping review and case study of Australian surveys.

D Varley, A Henry, J Halladay, A Baillie, K Keyes, T Slade, C Chapman, S O'Dean, R Visontay, L Mewton and 3 more

Abstract readScoping ReviewReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing 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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

13 authors.

D VarleyThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia. deanna.varley@sydney.edu.au.
A HenryThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
J HalladayThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
A BaillieThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
K KeyesMailman School of Public Health, Columbia University, New York, USA.
T SladeThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
C ChapmanThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
S O'DeanThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
R VisontayThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
L MewtonThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
N C NewtonThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
M TeessonThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.
M SunderlandThe Matilda Centre for Research in Mental Health and Substance Use, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeMental health data are crucial for understanding trends in psychological distress. This scoping review aimed to identify and describe surveys of representative samples of the Australian household population that measured psychological distress, and to provide a case study illustrating how datasets can be systematically summarized to assist researchers to more easily identify available datasets.

methodsWe systematically searched PubMed and data archives for surveys state or nationally representative of the Australian household population that assessed psychological distress.

resultsWe provide a searchable metadata database characterizing 283 identified datasets from 41 studies (25 cross-sectional, 16 longitudinal) conducted between 1989 and 2023. Thirty-nine psychological distress instruments were used, with the Kessler Psychological Distress scale (K10) [1] most common (n = 114 datasets). Surveys also frequently measured demographics, physical health, and socioeconomic information. Stratified random sampling of geographic areas was the most common sampling frame, and adults the most frequently sampled group. There was notably less representation of important subgroups of the population, including youth, Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander people, and people with disabilities, despite evidence of high distress prevalence in these groups.

conclusionsThis review provides valuable metadata summarizing available psychological distress datasets, including information on sampling designs, instrumentation, and covariates. This metadata is available to other researchers, enabling efficient identification of relevant datasets, promoting data sharing, and supporting future data integration. This method for systematically compiling metadata can be replicated for data related to other topics important to public health to facilitate greater data utilization.

Indexed as

Health SurveysPsychological DistressStress, PsychologicalAdultAustraliaCross-Sectional StudiesHumansDepressionEpidemiologyMental healthPsychological distressSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID40789817
PMCPMC12855228

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.