Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41777036›Full record

ArticleThe Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry2026

A virtual consultative forum on future reforms to Better Access.

Dianne Currier, Michelle Williamson, Danielle Newton, Ariel Kruger, Tim Van Gelder, Meredith Harris, Jane Pirkis

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
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. Australia's Better Access initiative: A survey of provider and referrer views.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

7 authors.

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
Michelle WilliamsonCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0009-0006-9403-5483
Danielle NewtonCentre for Mental Health and Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0009-0002-3226-2673
Ariel KrugerHunt Laboratory for Intelligence and Security Studies, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0121-2780
Tim Van GelderHunt Laboratory for Intelligence and Security Studies, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-5606-495X
Meredith HarrisSchool of Public Health, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, QLD, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-0096-729X
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

objectiveBetter Access is a major Australian Government mental health initiative that provides rebates to people experiencing mental health problems so they can access psychological services at reduced or no cost. Currently, GPs, psychiatrists, clinical psychologists, psychologists, social workers, and occupational therapists provide referrals and/or treatment services under Better Access. This study sought to consult a broad range of stakeholders and identify their collective view on future reform priorities for Better Access.

methodsConsultations followed a three-phase process. In Phase 1, participants completed a brief online survey to identify priority topics. In Phase 2, participants took part in an online forum where they discussed and refined topic summary statements. In Phase 3, participants rated agreement with a revised set of statements and ranked topics in a second online survey.

resultsNinety stakeholders participated. Collective views emphasised the need to enhance access through improving affordability for consumers and increasing workforce capacity, particularly in rural/remote areas. Participants also identified a need to review the scope and rules of the programme to better accommodate the increasing use of Better Access by people with more complex mental health needs. Views varied on the best mechanisms to address these issues.

conclusionsCollective views emerged on key areas for reform for Better Access. While there were varying views on the best way to address these priority areas, stakeholders concurred that the programme's capacity needed to be expanded to meet the increasing levels of community demand for mental health care.

Indexed as

Health Care ReformHealth Services AccessibilityMental DisordersMental Health ServicesReferral and ConsultationAustraliaHumansPsychologistsBetter AccessMedicaremental health servicesPsychological therapy

Identifiers

PMID41777036
PMCPMC12960777

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.