Policy implications of the 2020-22 Australian study of mental health and wellbeing

Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2024 Nov 7:48674241292961. doi: 10.1177/00048674241292961. Online ahead of print.

Abstract

The objective of this paper is to summarise the policy implications of key findings from the 2020-22 Australian National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHWB). We provide an analysis of policy implications of four papers in this issue of the journal from the 2020-22 NSMHWB (N = 15,893) and the 2007 NSMHWB (N = 8841). The 2020-2022 NSMHWB reported a lifetime prevalence rate of common mental disorders of 40.2% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 39.2-41.3) and 12-month prevalence rate of 20.2% (95% CI 19.5-21.0). Overall, adult Australians were significantly more likely to experience a 12-month mental disorder in 2020-22 compared with 2007, with the change most striking in among those aged 16-24 years (odds ratio [OR] 1.2, 95% CI 1.1-1.3). Individuals aged 16-24 years in 2020-22 were significantly more likely to experience a 12-month anxiety disorder (OR 2.9, 95% CI = 2.3-3.7, depressive disorder (OR 2.8 95% CI = 2.1-3.9) or comorbidity (relative risk [RR] = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.2-1.7) compared with those aged 16-24 years in 2007. In 2020-22, the proportion of Australians who had experienced suicidal ideation, suicide plans and suicide attempts in the past 12 months was 3.3%, 1.1% and 0.3%. Under half (46.5% 95% CI 44.1-48.8) of adults with a 12-month mental disorder sought treatment. Mental disorders remain an endemic feature of Australia's overall health landscape and appear to be increasing, especially in younger cohorts. While service use rates have improved over time, there is still some way to go. Epidemiological surveys such as the 2020-22 NSMHWB are important for understanding changing prevalence and the population not accessing services. Innovative prevention and treatment strategies will be needed to address the increasing rates of disorders in younger Australian adults. Equally innovative and bold policy responses will be essential.

Keywords: Government; mental health; planning; policy.