The authors wish it to be known that, in their opinion, the first two authors should be regarded as joint first authors.
Is a national framework for implementing early psychosis services necessary? Results of a survey of Australian mental health service directors
Article first published online: 25 JAN 2010
© 2010 The Authors. Journal compilation © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd
Early Intervention in Psychiatry
Volume 4, Issue 1, pages 25–30, February 2010
How to Cite
Catts, S. V., Evans, R. W., O'Toole, B. I., Carr, V. J., Lewin, T., Neil, A. L., Harris, M. G., Frost, A. D.J., Crissman, B. R. and Eadie, K. (2010), Is a national framework for implementing early psychosis services necessary? Results of a survey of Australian mental health service directors. Early Intervention in Psychiatry, 4: 25–30. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-7893.2009.00157.x
- Issue published online: 28 JAN 2010
- Article first published online: 25 JAN 2010
- Received 1 June 2009; accepted 9 September 2009
- early psychosis;
- funding model;
- mental health;
- program evaluation;
- rural and remote
Aim: Expert opinion holds that the rate of implementation of specialist services for first presentation psychosis in Australia is much too slow. We aimed to collect evidence regarding this view from the first national survey of adult public mental health services about their self-reported efforts to implement specialist early psychosis intervention (EPI).
Methods: Using a purpose-designed Census form for assessing EPI implementation, adult public mental health service directors throughout Australia were asked about EPI-relevant local service activities.
Results: Sixty Census forms were returned (response rate = 61%), representing a total catchment population of 12.5 million people. A minority of services reported high levels of EPI implementation, which varied widely between area services and across state and territory jurisdictions. Rural and remote services were overrepresented in the lowest levels of reported EPI implementation. Only one service characteristic, the value of identifiable funding committed specifically to EPI, was predictive of level of reported EPI implementation.
Conclusions: The disturbingly high levels of variability in EPI implementation across jurisdictions suggest a pressing need for a set of nationally agreed uniform EPI implementation standards. Additional specific strategies for rural and remote mental health services may be needed for these services to implement EPI.