Integrative mental health in 2015

Conventional and complementary health care use and out-of-pocket expenses among Australians with a self-reported mental health diagnosis: a cross-sectional survey

Background

Mental health disorders are a global health concern. In Australia, numerous national reports have found that the current mental healthcare system does not adequately meet the needs of Australians with mental illness. Consequently, a greater understanding of how people with a mental health disorder are using the broader healthcare system is needed. The aim of this paper is to explore conventional and complementary health care use and expenditure among Australian adults reporting a mental health disorder diagnosis.

Methods

A cross-sectional online survey of 2,019 Australian adults examined socio-demographic characteristics, complementary and conventional health care use and the health status of participants.

Results

32 % (n = 641) of the total sample (N = 2019) reported a mental health disorder in the previous 3 years. Of these, 96 % reported consulting a general practitioner, 90.6 % reported using prescription medicines, 42.4 % consulted a complementary medicine practitioner, 56.9 % used a complementary medicine product and 23 % used a complementary medicine practice. The estimated 12-month out-of-pocket health care expenditure among Australians with a mental health disorder was AUD$ 4,568,267,421 (US$ 3,398,293,672) for conventional health care practitioners and medicines, and AUD$ 1,183,752,486 (US$ 880,729,891) for complementary medicine practitioners, products and practices. Older people (50–59 and 60 and over) were less likely to consult a CM practitioner (OR = 0.538, 95% CI [0.373, 0.775]; OR = 0.398, 95% CI [0.273, 0.581] respectively) or a psychologist/counsellor (OR = 0.394, 95% CI [0.243, 0.639]; OR = 0.267, 95% CI [0.160, 0.447] respectively). People either looking for work or not in the workforce were less likely to visit a CM practitioner (OR = 0.298, 95% CI [0.194, 0.458]; OR = 0.476, 95% CI [0.353, 0.642], respectively).

Conclusions

A substantial proportion of Australian adults living with a mental health disorder pay for both complementary and conventional health care directly out-of-pocket. This finding suggests improved coordination of healthcare services is needed for individuals living with a mental health disorder. Research examining the redesign of primary health care provision should also consider whether complementary medicine practitioners and/or integrative health care service delivery models could play a role in addressing risks associated with complementary medicine use and the unmet needs of people living with a mental health disorder.

Healthcare professionals' perspectives on mental health service provision: a pilot focus group study in six European countries

Background

The mental healthcare treatment gap (mhcGAP) in adult populations has been substantiated across Europe. This study formed part of MentALLY, a research project funded by the European Commission, which aimed to gather qualitative empirical evidence to support the provision of European mental healthcare that provides effective treatment to all adults who need it.

Methods

Seven focus groups were conducted with 49 health professionals (HPs), including psychologists, psychiatrists, social workers, general practitioners, and psychiatric nurses who worked in health services in Belgium, Cyprus, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway and Sweden. The focus group discussions centered on the barriers and facilitators to providing quality care to people with mild, medium, and severe mental health problems. Analyses included deductively and inductively driven coding procedures. Cross-country consensus was obtained by summarizing findings in the form of a fact sheet which was shared for triangulation by all the MentALLY partners.

Results

The results converged into two overarching themes: (1) Minding the treatment gap: the availability and accessibility of Mental Health Services (MHS). The mhcGAP gap identified is composed of different elements that constitute the barriers to care, including bridging divides in care provision, obstacles in facilitating access via referrals and creating a collaborative ‘chain of care’. (2) Making therapeutic practice relevant by providing a broad-spectrum of integrated and comprehensive services that value person-centered care comprised of authenticity, flexibility and congruence.

Conclusions

The mhcGAP is comprised of the following barriers: a lack of funding, insufficient capacity of human resources, inaccessibility to comprehensive services and a lack of availability of relevant treatments. The facilitators to the provision of MHC include using collaborative models of primary, secondary and prevention-oriented mental healthcare. Teamwork in providing care was considered to be a more effective and efficient use of resources. HPs believe that the use of e-mental health and emerging digital technologies can enhance care provision. Facilitating access to a relevant continuum of community-based care that is responsive coordinated and in line with people’s needs throughout their lives is an essential aspect of optimal care provision.