Cited by 43Digital Mental Health InterventionsMental Health Treatment and AccessIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights

A comparison of Indigenous and non-Indigenous users of MindSpot: an Australian digital mental health service

Titov, Nickolai, Schofield, Carlie, Staples, Lauren, Dear, Blake F, Nielssen, Olav·2019·Australasian Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective: To report on Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander (Indigenous) users of MindSpot, a national service for the remote assessment and treatment of anxiety and depression. Methods: The characteristics and treatment outcomes of Indigenous patients who registered with MindSpot between January 2015 and December 2016, were compared with non-Indigenous users. Changes in psychological distress, depression and anxiety were measured using the Kessler 10-Item (K-10), Patient Health Questionnaire 9-Item (PHQ-9), and Generalised Anxiety Disorder Scale 7-Item (GAD-7), respectively. Results: Of 23,235 people who completed a MindSpot assessment between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2016, 780 (3.4%) identified as Indigenous Australian. They had higher symptom scores, were more likely to live in a remote location, and a third reported no previous contact with mental health services. Fewer Indigenous patients enrolled in a treatment course, but those who did had similar rates of completion and similar reductions in symptoms to non-Indigenous patients. Conclusions: MindSpot treatments were effective in treating anxiety and depression in Indigenous Australians, and outcomes were similar to those of non-Indigenous patients. Services like MindSpot are a treatment option that can help overcome barriers to mental health care for Indigenous Australians.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1039856218789784

Cites

10 of 10 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Titov, N., Schofield, C., Staples, L., Dear, B. F., & Nielssen, O.
Affiliations
  • Macquarie University (AU)
  • Aboriginal Mental Health Consultant, Illawarra Aboriginal Medical Service, Wollongong, NSW, Australia
  • National Health and Medical Research Council (AU)
Corresponding author
Nielssen, Olav
Venue
Australasian Psychiatry
Published
2018-07-30
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
352-357
ISSN
  • 1039-8562 (ISSN-L)
  • 1440-1665
OpenAlex
W2887903306
Cited by
43
References
10
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 2
FWCI
6.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Australasian Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Digital Mental Health Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Health › Indigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Keywords
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples, Indigenous Australians, digital mental health services, anxiety, depression, psychological distress, remote mental health care, barriers to mental health care, treatment outcomes, Indigenous mental health
MeSH terms
Adult, Anxiety, Australia, Depression, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Mental Health Services, Middle Aged, Outcome and Process Assessment, Health Care, Patient Acceptance of Health Care, Telemedicine, Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander, 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