ReviewThe Australian and New Zealand journal of psychiatry2026
Disparities in mental health service use in Australia: Analysis of the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (2020-2022).
Review 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. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesWe aimed to quantify inequalities in mental health service use in Australia and identify the sociodemographic, economic, and geographic factors associated with access.
methodsWe conducted a secondary analysis of the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB, 2020-2022). We evaluated 12-month mental health service use before the survey among people who reported a mental disorder. We fitted multivariable logistic regression models adjusted for sociodemographic covariates and tested the joint (intersectional) effects of remoteness and socioeconomic area disadvantage on service use. Jackknife replicate weights accounted for the complex survey design.
resultsThe study included 15,893 respondents (weighted population: 19,828,348). Lifetime prevalence of any mental health disorder was 42.9% (95% CI = [42.5, 43.3]), and 21.5% (95% CI = [20.7, 22.3]) reported symptoms in the past 12 months. Among those with a 12-month disorder, 45.2% (95% CI = [39.9, 50.5]) had accessed care, and 16.5% (95% CI = [15.8, 17.2]) reported using digital or telephone services. Service use was higher in university graduates and residents of advantaged areas and lower in remote/outer regional residents and the most disadvantaged quintiles. Intersectional analysis revealed compounded inequities, with the lowest service use observed among socioeconomically disadvantaged populations in remote areas and the highest among advantaged major-city residents.
conclusionSubstantial and intersecting inequalities exist in access to mental health services, with the lowest coverage among remote, socioeconomically disadvantaged, older, and male populations. Targeted, place-based strategies - including expanded outreach and tailored digital and community-based models - are needed to reduce unmet need and improve equity.
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.