The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
User characteristics and outcomes from a national digital mental health service: an observational study of registrants of the Australian MindSpot Clinic
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Scoring ≥8 suggests a likely generalized anxiety disorder diagnosis. 33”
From Utilization, Patient Characteristics, and Longitudinal Improvements among Patients from a Provincially Funded Transdiagnostic Internet-delivered Cognitive Behavioural Therapy Program: Observational Study of Trends over 6 Years (2022) · cites this paper as [33]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The sample characteristics are similar to the Australian sample, 33 except a greater proportion of our patients reported concurrent medication use and treatment.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“iCBT effects were stable across years.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Score > 21 suggests significant distress. 33”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In this 7-year Australian study, utilization increased in the first 3 years and subsequently stabilized, with a higher demand for assessment services than iCBT.”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Over time, there was an increase in young adult users, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander, and individuals with anxiety.”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., & Williams, J. B. W. (2001) · Journal of General Internal Medicine · doi:10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x · Cited by 44,910
A Brief Measure for Assessing Generalized Anxiety Disorder: The GAD-7
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., Williams, J. B. W., & Löwe, B. (2006) · Archives of Internal Medicine · doi:10.1001/archinte.166.10.1092 · Cited by 31,765
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., Vandenbroucke, J. P., & Initiative, F. T. S. (2007) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 · Cited by 23,020
von Elm, E., Altman, D. G., Egger, M., Pocock, S. J., Gøtzsche, P. C., & Vandenbroucke, J. P. (2007) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(07)61602-x · Cited by 21,320
Vos, T., Abajobir, A. A., Abate, K. H., Abbafati, C., Abbas, K. M., Abd-Allah, F., Abdulkader, R. S., Abdulle, A. M., Abebo, T. A., Abera, S. F., et al. (2017) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(17)32154-2 · Cited by 13,220
KESSLER, R. C., ANDREWS, G., COLPE, L. J., HIRIPI, E., MROCZEK, D. K., NORMAND, S.-L. T., WALTERS, E. E., & ZASLAVSKY, A. M. (2002) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291702006074 · Cited by 10,327
Anxiety disorders in primary care: prevalence, impairment, comorbidity, and detection
Kroenke, K., Spitzer, R. L., Williams, J. B. W., Monahan, P. O., & Löwe, B. (2007) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/0003-4819-146-5-200703060-00004 · Cited by 4,741
Advantages and limitations of Internet-based interventions for common mental disorders
Andersson, G., & Titov, N. (2014) · World Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/wps.20083 · Cited by 1,160
Self-citationHubbard (2010) · doi:10.1097/ede.0b013e3181caeb90 · Cited by 1,139
Barriers to mental health treatment: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication
Mojtabai, R., Olfson, M., Sampson, N. A., Jin, R., Druss, B., Wang, P. S., Wells, K. B., Pincus, H. A., & Kessler, R. C. (2011) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291710002291 · Cited by 951
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Titov, 2017, The first 30 months of the MindSpot Clinic: evaluation of a national e-mental health service against project objectives, Aust N Z J Psychiatry, 51, 1227, 10.1177/0004867416671598 · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 101–108 of 108
Online Transdiagnostic Self-Help Interventions
Klimczak, K. S., Donahue, M. L., & Bowers, E. M. (2026) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-08980-9_12 · Cited by 2
Huhn, V., Isacsson, N. H., Bendix, M., Kraepelien, M., Sahlin, H., Kaldo, V., & Forsell, E. (2026) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2026.100926
Extending the Reach of Interventions to Treat Mental Disorders
Kazdin, A. E. (2026) · Psychiatry International · doi:10.3390/psychiatryint7020078
Sandín, B., Valiente, R. M., Arnáez, S., García-Escalera, J., Schmitt, J. C., Díaz-Mandado, O., & Chorot, P. (2026) · Internet Interventions · doi:10.1016/j.invent.2026.100948
Urfa, O., & Titov, N. (2026) · Psychiatric Quarterly · doi:10.1007/s11126-026-10283-6 · Cited by 1
Self-citationMcNaughton, D. T., Fisher, A., Bradley, A., Hancock, M. J., French, S. D., & Dear, B. F. (2026) · Musculoskeletal Science and Practice · doi:10.1016/j.msksp.2026.103630
Self-citationBassilios, B., Scurrah, K. J., Morgan, A. J., Roberts, L. J., Ftanou, M., & Spittal, M. J. (2026) · JMIR Formative Research · doi:10.2196/90121
March, S., Hayixibayi, A., Rowe, A., Stevens, J. M., Zieschank, K. L., Donovan, C. L., & Spence, S. H. (2026) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/97810
Metadata
- Authors
- Titov, N., Dear, B. F., Nielssen, O., Wootton, B., Kayrouz, R., Karin, E., Genest, B., Bennett-Levy, J., Purtell, C., Bezuidenhout, G., Tan, R., Minissale, C., Thadhani, P., Webb, N., Willcock, S., Andersson, G., Hadjistavropoulos, H. D., Mohr, D. C., Kavanagh, D. J., Cross, S., & Staples, L. G.
- Affiliations
- Macquarie University (AU)
- University of Technology Sydney (AU)
- Linköping University (SE)
- University of Regina (CA)
- Northwestern University (US)
- Queensland University of Technology (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Staples, Lauren G
- ORCID
- Venue
- The Lancet Digital Health
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2020-11
- Volume
- 2
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e582-e593
- ISSN
- 2589-7500 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7571905
- OpenAlex
- W3092838678
- Cited by
- 108
- References
- 34
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 2
- FWCI
- 14.24
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- The Lancet Digital Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- QUT ePrints (Queensland University of Technology) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DiVA (Linkoping University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
- UTS ePRESS (University of Technology Sydney) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- The Sydney eScholarship Repository (The University of Sydney) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- Australian Government
- Macquarie University
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Telemedicine and Telehealth Implementation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Keywords
- digital mental health, telemedicine, depression, anxiety, psychological distress, treatment outcomes, treatment completion, help-seeking, user characteristics, Australian adults, usual care, Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, PHQ-9, GAD-7, course satisfaction, mental health service delivery
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Australia, Demography, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Treatment Outcome, Telemedicine, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review