Improving access to mental health care: a system dynamics model of direct access to specialist care and accelerated specialist service capacity growth.

OBJECTIVE: To simulate the impact on population mental health indicators of allowing people to book some Medicare-subsidised sessions with psychologists and other mental health care professionals without a referral (direct access), and of increasing the annual growth rate in specialist mental health care capacity (consultations). DESIGN: System dynamics model, calibrated using historical time series data from the Australian Bureau of Statistics, HealthStats NSW, the Australian Institute of Health and Welfare, and the Australian Early Development Census. Parameter values that could not be derived from these sources were estimated by constrained optimisation. SETTING: New South Wales, 1 September 2021 - 1 September 2028. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Projected mental health-related emergency department presentations, hospitalisations following self-harm, and deaths by suicide, both overall and for people aged 15-24 years. RESULTS: Direct access (for 10-50% of people requiring specialist mental health care) would lead to increases in the numbers of mental health-related emergency department presentations (0.33-1.68% of baseline), hospitalisations with self-harm (0.16-0.77%), and deaths by suicide (0.19-0.90%), as waiting times for consultations would increase, leading to disengagement and consequently to increases in adverse outcomes. Increasing the annual rate of growth of mental health service capacity (two- to fivefold) would reduce the frequency of all three outcomes; combining direct access to a proportion of services with increased growth in capacity achieved substantially greater gains than an increase in service capacity alone. A fivefold increase in the annual service growth rate would increase capacity by 71.6% by the end of 2028, compared with current projections; combined with direct access to 50% of mental health consultations, 26 616 emergency department presentations (3.6%), 1199 hospitalisations following self-harm (1.9%), and 158 deaths by suicide (2.1%) could be averted. CONCLUSION: The optimal combination of increased service capacity growth (fivefold) and direct access (50% of consultations) would have double the impact over seven years of accelerated capacity growth alone. Our model highlights the risks of implementing individual reforms without knowledge of their overall system effect.

A Mental Wealth perspective: crossing disciplines to understand the value of collective mental and social assets in the post-COVID-19 era.

BACKGROUND: A reconceptualised global strategy is key as nations begin to shift from crisis management to medium- and long-term planning to rebuild and strengthen their economic, social and public health systems. Efforts towards measuring, modelling, and forecasting Mental Wealth could serve as the catalyst for this reconceptualization. The Mental Wealth approach builds systemic resilience through investments which promote collective cognitive and emotional wellbeing. This paper presents the theoretical foundations for Mental Wealth. It presents, for the first time, literature across the disciplines of health and social sciences, economics, business, and humanities to underpin the development of an operational metric of Mental Wealth. DISCUSSION: An approach which embeds social and psychological dimensions of prosperity, alongside the economic, is needed to inform the effective allocation of investments in the post-pandemic world. The authors advocate for a transdisciplinary framework of Mental Wealth to be applied in innovating population-level policy interventions to address the growing challenges brought on by COVID-19. Mental Wealth highlights the value generated by the deployment of collective mental assets and supporting social infrastructure. In order to inform this position, a review of the literature on the concepts underpinning Mental Wealth is presented, limitations of current measurement tools of mental and social resources are evaluated, and a framework for development of a Mental Wealth metric is proposed. CONCLUSION: There are challenges in developing an operational Mental Wealth metric. The breadth of conceptual foundations to be considered is extensive, and there may be a lack of agreement on the appropriate tools for its measurement. While variability across current measurement approaches in social resources, wellbeing and mental assets contributes to the difficulty creating a holistic and generic metric, these variations are now clearer. The operationalisation of the Mental Wealth metric will require comprehensive mapping of the elements to be included against the data available.