Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41777032›Full record

ArticleThe Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry2026

Australia's Better Access initiative: A survey of provider and referrer views.

Caley Tapp, Meredith Harris, Dianne Currier, Lisa Brophy, Cathrine Mihalopoulos, Jane Pirkis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing 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

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Evaluation of Australia's Better Access initiative: An overview.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2026
    Review
  5. A virtual consultative forum on future reforms to Better Access.The Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry · 2026
    Article
  6. 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

6 authors.

Caley TappSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2731-7345
Meredith HarrisSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0096-729X
Dianne CurrierCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-6614-271X
Lisa BrophySchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6460-3490
Cathrine MihalopoulosHealth Economics Group, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-7127-9462
Jane PirkisCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-2538-4472

Funding

Australian Government Department of Health, Disability and Ageing
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveAustralia's Better Access initiative enables people with mental disorders to be referred for treatment and management through a range of providers. The costs to consumers are offset by Medicare rebates. We examined eligible providers' and referrers' views and experiences with Better Access.

methodAn anonymous online survey was completed by 2386 participants: 572 clinical psychologists, 1140 psychologists, 398 social workers, 104 occupational therapists, 45 general practitioners and 126 psychiatrists. The survey included questions about processes, outcomes, barriers and facilitators associated with Better Access.

resultsMost survey participants (54-99% depending on professional group) had provided Better Access services in 2021. The majority believed Better Access enables them to deliver care that is appropriate, tailored to consumers' needs and achieves good outcomes. However, there were concerns that consumers who require more intensive or linked-up care might not receive adequate care through Better Access. Many providers, particularly allied health professionals, did not have the capacity to take on new consumers, leading to long waiting lists and delayed treatment. High out-of-pocket costs (a flow-on effect of inadequate rebates) were seen as discouraging engagement by consumers on low incomes. Good communication between referrers and providers was seen as a key facilitator of Better Access care, but complicated referral and review processes were identified as impeding communication and disrupting continuity of care for consumers.

conclusionProviders and referrers agreed that Better Access achieves good outcomes for consumers. Strategies to address workforce capacity and affordability for consumers, and to streamline referral and review processes are needed.

Indexed as

Attitude of Health PersonnelHealth Services AccessibilityMental DisordersMental Health ServicesReferral and ConsultationAdultAustraliaFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPsychiatristsPsychologistsBetter AccessMedicaremental health servicespsychological therapy

Identifiers

PMID41777032
PMCPMC12960763

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.