User characteristics and outcomes from a national digital mental health service: an observational study of registrants of the Australian MindSpot Clinic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Interest is growing in digital and telehealth delivery of mental health services, but data are scarce on outcomes in routine care. The federally funded Australian MindSpot Clinic provides online and telephone psychological assessment and treatment services to Australian adults. We aimed to summarise demographic characteristics and treatment outcomes of patients registered with MindSpot over the first 7 years of clinic operation. Methods: We used an observational design to review all patients who registered for assessment with the MindSpot Clinic between Jan 1, 2013, and Dec 31, 2019. We descriptively analysed the demographics, service preferences, and baseline symptoms of patients. Among patients enrolled in a digital treatment course, we evaluated scales of depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 [PHQ-9]) and anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder 7-Item Scale [GAD-7]), as primary measures of treatment outcome, from the screening assessment to post-treatment and a 3 month follow-up. The Kessler Psychological Distress 10-Item Plus Scale was also used to assess changes in general distress and disability, and course satisfaction was measured post-treatment. Outcomes: A total of 121 652 screening assessments were started, of which 96 018 (78·9%) were completed. The mean age of patients was 35·7 years (SD 13·8) and 88 702 (72·9%) were women. Based on available assessment data, 36 866 (34·5%) of 106 811 participants had never previously spoken to a health professional about their symptoms, and most people self-reported symptoms of anxiety (88 879 [81·9%] of 108 494) or depression (78 803 [72·6%] of 108 494), either alone or in combination, at baseline. 21 745 patients started treatment in a therapist-guided online course, of whom 14 503 (66·7%) completed treatment (≥four of five lessons). Key trends in service use included an increase in the proportion of people using MindSpot primarily for assessment and information, from 52·6% in 2013 to 66·7% in 2019, while the proportion primarily seeking online treatment decreased, from 42·6% in 2013 to 26·7% in 2019. Effect sizes and percentage changes were large for estimated mean scores on the PHQ-9 and GAD-7 from assessment to post-treatment (PHQ-9, Cohen's d effect size 1·40 [95% CI 1·37-1·43]; and GAD-7, 1·45 [1·42-1·47]) and the 3 month follow-up (PHQ-9, 1·36 [1·34-1·38]; and GAD-7, 1·42 [1·40-1·44]); proportions of patients with reliable symptom deterioration (score increase of ≥6 points [PHQ-9] or ≥5 points [GAD-7]) were low post-treatment (of 13 058 respondents, 184 [1·4%] had symptom deterioration on the PHQ-9 and 282 [2·2%] on the GAD-7); and patient satisfaction rates were high (12 452 [96·6%] of 12 895 respondents would recommend the course and 12 433 [96·7%] of 12 860 reported the course worthwhile). We also observed small improvements in disability following treatment as measured by days out of role. Interpretation: Our findings indicate improvement in psychological symptoms and positive reception among patients receiving online mental health treatment. These results support the addition of digital services such as MindSpot as a component in contemporary national mental health systems. Funding: None.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".