Is headspace making a difference to young people’s lives?
Evaluation-of-headspace-program Evaluation-of-headspace-program
Appendix F differences in K10 outcomes. Around 90% of the population of headspace clients live in major cities or inner regional areas, with headspace centres too located predominantly in those two geographies. This does mean that a notable proportion (around 24%) of young persons who live in outer regional areas visit headspace centres in inner regional locations. The rate of clinical improvement in K10 is highest for those people living in outer regional areas, at 15.4% for females (Figure F7) and 15.1% for young men (Figure F8). The population of headspace clients living in remote or very remote areas is very low, compared to those in cities and inner/outer regional area. Despite this, it is important to note the contrast in the rates of significant decline in mental health function for young women living in remote or very remote areas, at 10%, relative to those in more populated areas. We see far fewer young men than young women from remote/very remote areas visiting headspace centres, which makes it difficult to draw reliable comparisons. Figure F7 Changes in K10 score between first and last headspace treatment: FEMALE clients, by remoteness (ARIA) index Source: Authors’ calculations from hCSA data. Figure F8 Changes in K10 score between first and last headspace treatment: MALE clients, by remoteness (ARIA) index Notes: Remote and very remote regions excluded from chart for male headspace clients, due to small sample sizes. Source: Authors’ calculations from hCSA data. Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 196
Appendix F Occasion of service intervals at headspace centres Figure F9 illustrates the proportion of headspace clients who show a clinically (CS) or reliably (RS) significant improvement in K10 for different occasions of service (OoS) intervals. The analysis differentiates the rates of clinical or reliable improvement both by age and gender, and by a series of OoS intervals – specifically comparing K10 between the first and third OoS, the first and sixth OoS, the first and tenth OoS, and finally between the first and last OoS in a single episode of treatment. Female headspace clients enter into a program of treatments with typically a higher presenting K10 score than for males, and often remain within the system for a longer period of time. Females show a higher level of clinically and reliably significant improvement as they get older. For example, the proportion of young women aged 14 and under who clinically improve in K10 terms is around 8% by the third visit relative to entry, rising to 12.6% by the tenth visit (see Figure F9). For young women aged 23 and over, the rate of clinical K10 improvement rises from 10% at the third visit to nearly 18% by the tenth. Combining rates of clinical and reliable improvements (Figure F9), the percentage of females aged 23 and over rises from 16% by the third visit to nearly 29% at the tenth. Around 12% of young men aged 14 and under show a clinical improvement by the third visit, with this figure rising to 22% by the tenth visit (Figure F9). When clinical and reliable improvements are combined together for young men (Figure F9), we see around a quarter to have improved significantly in terms of psychological distress. Figure F9 Proportion of headspace clients showing clinically (CS) or reliably (RS) significant change in K10, by age and occasion of service (OoS) interval i. Females, CS change ii. Males, CS change iii. Females, CS or RS change iv. Males, CS or RS change Notes: Calculations exclude those who are observed to engage with headspace for only a single OoS. Furthermore, the K10 change for each OoS interval is generated only for those clients where there is an observed K10 at both OoS in the difference (for example, the average difference in K10 between OoS1 and OoS6 is calculated only for those headspace clients who have their K10 recorded on both the first and sixth visits. Source: Authors’ calculations from hCSA data. The trajectory of clinically and reliably significant improvements in K10 by age is relatively flat for Social Policy Research Centre 2015 headspace Evaluation Final Report 197
- Page 155 and 156: Appendix B Figure B18 SA1s within 1
- Page 157 and 158: Figure B20 Hypothetical allocation
- Page 159 and 160: Appendix B The current model of cen
- Page 161 and 162: Appendix B Current centre funding m
- Page 163 and 164: Appendix B Evaluation of the curren
- Page 165 and 166: Appendix B Level of funding availab
- Page 167 and 168: Appendix B provide a method for ide
- Page 169 and 170: Appendix B centres and Localities i
- Page 171 and 172: Appendix B for greater flexibility
- Page 173 and 174: Appendix B Additional consideration
- Page 175 and 176: Appendix B of achieving more effici
- Page 177 and 178: Appendix B • Used the simulation
- Page 179 and 180: Appendix C information relating to
- Page 181 and 182: Appendix C Regarding gender, in bot
- Page 183 and 184: Appendix C Figure C5 Total number o
- Page 185 and 186: Appendix C Table C1 Information Sum
- Page 187 and 188: Appendix C Data Cleaning and Analys
- Page 189 and 190: Appendix C groups. The age and sex
- Page 191 and 192: Appendix C Figure C8 Demographic ch
- Page 193 and 194: Appendix C The KeySurvey software s
- Page 195 and 196: Appendix C different client groups.
- Page 197 and 198: Appendix D Round State Centre Name
- Page 199 and 200: Appendix E Characteristics HS clien
- Page 201 and 202: Table E4 Cell Sizes for Figure 3.4
- Page 203 and 204: Appendix F Figure F1 Changes in K10
- Page 205: Appendix F three SEIFA quintiles. A
- Page 209 and 210: Appendix F Table F1 Cell sizes for
- Page 211 and 212: Appendix F Table F4 Cell sizes for
- Page 213 and 214: Appendix F Table F9 Cell sizes for
- Page 215 and 216: Appendix G Supplementary material f
- Page 217 and 218: Appendix G Table G3 Round 3 (10 cen
- Page 219 and 220: Appendix G Table G7 Round 7 (10 cen
- Page 221 and 222: State (youth population) a headspac
- Page 223 and 224: State (youth population) a headspac
- Page 225 and 226: Appendix G Table G12 Round 11(16 ce
- Page 227 and 228: Table G16 Additional youth populati
- Page 229 and 230: Round Region State Additional youth
- Page 231 and 232: State (youth population) a headspac
- Page 233 and 234: State (youth population) a headspac
- Page 235 and 236: Appendix G Figure G1 Percentage of
- Page 237 and 238: Appendix G Figure G5 Percentage of
- Page 239 and 240: Appendix G Figure G9 Percentage of
- Page 241 and 242: Appendix G Figure G13 Percentage of
- Page 243 and 244: Appendix G Table G22 Australians 18
- Page 245 and 246: Appendix G Synthetic small area est
- Page 247 and 248: Appendix G Figure G16 Estimated pre
- Page 249 and 250: Appendix G Figure G18 Estimated pre
- Page 251 and 252: Appendix G Figure G20 Estimated pre
- Page 253 and 254: Appendix G Figure G22 SA1s within 1
- Page 255 and 256: Appendix G Figure G24 SA1s within 1
Appendix F<br />
<strong>difference</strong>s in K10 outcomes.<br />
Around 90% of the population of <strong>headspace</strong> clients live in major cities or inner regional areas, with<br />
<strong>headspace</strong> centres <strong>to</strong>o located predominantly in those two geographies. This does mean that a<br />
notable proportion (around 24%) of <strong>young</strong> persons who live in outer regional areas visit <strong>headspace</strong><br />
centres in inner regional locations.<br />
The rate of clinical improvement in K10 is highest for those people living in outer regional areas, at<br />
15.4% for females (Figure F7) and 15.1% for <strong>young</strong> men (Figure F8). The population of <strong>headspace</strong><br />
clients living in remote or very remote areas is very low, compared <strong>to</strong> those in cities and inner/outer<br />
regional area. Despite this, it is important <strong>to</strong> note the contrast in the rates of significant decline in<br />
mental health function for <strong>young</strong> women living in remote or very remote areas, at 10%, relative <strong>to</strong><br />
those in more populated areas. We see far fewer <strong>young</strong> men than <strong>young</strong> women from remote/very<br />
remote areas visiting <strong>headspace</strong> centres, which makes it difficult <strong>to</strong> draw reliable comparisons.<br />
Figure F7 Changes in K10 score between first and last <strong>headspace</strong> treatment: FEMALE clients, by<br />
remoteness (ARIA) index<br />
Source: Authors’ calculations from hCSA data.<br />
Figure F8 Changes in K10 score between first and last <strong>headspace</strong> treatment: MALE clients, by<br />
remoteness (ARIA) index<br />
Notes: Remote and very remote regions excluded from chart for male <strong>headspace</strong> clients, due <strong>to</strong> small sample sizes.<br />
Source: Authors’ calculations from hCSA data.<br />
Social Policy Research Centre 2015<br />
<strong>headspace</strong> Evaluation Final Report<br />
196
Change language