Cited by 79Mental Health Treatment and AccessWorkplace Health and Well-beingSchizophrenia research and treatment

Is the prevalence of mental illness increasing in Australia? Evidence from national health surveys and administrative data, 2001–2014

Open access
Harvey, Samuel B, Deady, Mark, Wang, Min‐Jung, Mykletun, Arnstein, Butterworth, Peter, Christensen, Helen, Mitchell, Philip B·2017·Medical Journal of Australia

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in the prevalence rates of probable common mental disorders (CMDs) and in rates of disability support pensions (DSPs) for people with psychiatric disorders in Australia between 2001 and 2014. DESIGN, SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Secondary analysis of data from five successive Australian national health surveys of representative samples of the working age population (18-65 years of age) and national data on DSP recipients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Prevalence of probable CMDs with very high symptom level (defined by a Kessler Psychological Distress Scale [K10] score of 30 or more) or with high symptom level (K10 score of 22 or more); the proportion of working age Australians receiving DSPs for psychiatric conditions. RESULTS: There was no change in the prevalence rate of probable CMDs with very high symptom levels between 2001 and 2014, but a slight decrease in the prevalence of probable CMDs with high symptoms levels, particularly among those under 45 years of age. Over the same period, the proportion of working age individuals receiving DSPs for psychiatric conditions increased by 51% (for trend, P < 0.001), equivalent to one additional DSP for every 182 working age Australians. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to popular belief, the prevalence of probable CMDs in Australia was stable between 2001 and 2014. However, the proportion of the working age population receiving DSPs for psychiatric conditions increased dramatically over the same period. This conundrum is a major public health problem that should be further examined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.5694/mja16.00295

Cites

18 of 18 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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
Harvey, S. B., Deady, M., Wang, M., Mykletun, A., Butterworth, P., Christensen, H., & Mitchell, P. B.
Affiliations
  • Black Dog Institute (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • Norwegian Institute of Public Health (NO)
  • The University of Melbourne (AU)
Corresponding author
Harvey, Samuel B
Venue
Medical Journal of Australia
Publisher
AMPCo
Published
2017-06
Volume
206
Issue
11
Pages
490-493
ISSN
  • 0025-729X (ISSN-L)
  • 1326-5377
OpenAlex
W2625577268
Cited by
79
References
18
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3
FWCI
14.10
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Medical Journal of Australia (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Workplace Health and Well-being
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Schizophrenia research and treatment
Keywords
common mental disorders, prevalence of mental disorders, Disability Support Pension, psychiatric disability, psychological distress, working-age population, Australia
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Australia, Mental Disorders, Disability Evaluation, Female, Health Surveys, Humans, Insurance Claim Review, Male, Middle Aged, Pensions, Prevalence, 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