Follow Graham on Twitter

Tuesday, October 2, 2012


Harnessing technology for better mental health services



By Graham Martin, University of Queensland

On R U OK? Day this year, this website turned the spotlight on services that help and support people who are not okay – in particular on challenges that organisations such as Lifeline experience in meeting increasing demand with finite human and financial resources.

Meeting the demand for mental health problems is not a new challenge. Nor is it one that shows any sign of easing in the near future. As we reduce the stigma related to mental illness and improve help-seeking in the community, demand for mental health services will most likely grow.

Clearly, we need to increase investment in mental health services. But more money is just part of the answer – we also need to be more creative about how we deliver services.

Australian governments may never have the necessary funds at their disposal to ensure that a telephone counsellor, psychologist, psychiatrist or other mental health professional is available for every person in every part of the country, whenever one is required. So we need to look at innovative solutions that are effective, equitable, and cost-effective.

Information technology offers one way of delivering these services. The Inspire Foundation’s experience in delivering ReachOut.com – a national web-based mental health service for young people – shows that an effective solution is to harness the potential of new and emerging technologies. This program has been running for 15 years.

Last year, the website helped over 650,000 young Australians, at a cost of around $11.50 per person. Many of these young people accessed ReachOut.com on multiple occasions – with over five million page views in that same year.

One of the advantages of online services is that they are able to meet huge demand at any time from anywhere, and at little cost. This makes them an ideal complement to face-to-face mental health services. Technology-based services offer the additional benefit of anonymity and 24-hour availability, making them a comfortable, safe and easy support option – especially for young people.

As more people around Australia are able to access high speed broadband, further opportunities will emerge to develop and deliver novel services that can reach and engage large numbers of people at low cost. Many organisations are beginning to think about the implications of these developments.

And the Young and Well CRC will work over the next five years to deliver the necessary research and development to further exploit the potential of technology to meet Australia’s mental health challenges.

Online services should not replace more traditional forms of service delivery, be they face-to-face or via telephone. The research clearly shows that the development of a real-time therapeutic alliance between a client and therapist remains the most powerful strategy for change.

But online information services and technology-based therapeutic interventions can act as important adjuncts to care. Where such services are routinely integrated into the wider mental health system, they will relieve pressure on traditional services by enabling people to help themselves, help each other and access professional support in between or while waiting for access to other services. And this can only help.
Graham Martin receives funding from The Australian Research Council. He is a Board Member of Inspire Foundation
The Conversation
       
        This article was originally published at The Conversation.
          Read the original article.
       

Friday, July 27, 2012

Self-help booklets for Managing Self-injury (free)

Having interviewed a large number of young self-injurers, as well as professionals from a variety of backgrounds struggling to manage self-injury, we created a number of self-help booklets.
There is one for young people
Seeking Solutions to Self-injury: A Guide for Young People
There is a second for family members
Seeking Solutions to Self-injury: A Guide for Parents and Families
And a third for school staff
Seeking Solutions to Self-injury: A Guide for School Staff

Please feel free to download them for free!

Self-injury in Australia; some facts and figures

Just over 8% of the Australian population claim to have self-injured at some time in their lives
Just over 1% of the Australian population claim to have self-injured at some time in the last month.
About 8% of young people aged 10-17 have self-injured. This percentage increases to about 18% for those aged 18-24 (15% for men and 20% for women), then gradually reducing over the age range. However, about 3% of those over 50 are still claiming to have self-injured.
Overall, more females than males do self-injure, but this was not statistically significant - men just use different methods, and so the response depends on what question you ask.
Everybody seems to think that self-injury is about suicidality. Clearly this is just not true. About 40% of self-injurers in the last month had had some thoughts of suicide, but only 10% had attempted in the past year. So, 90% had not attempted.... In fact some believe that self-injury, as a way of coping with emotional problems, may protect against serious outcomes.

If you want the background epidemiological research study on sef-injury completed with over 12,000 Australians, you can download it here

Go to http://www.familyconcernpublishing.com.au

Go to 'Resources' Tab

Click on ANESSI A national study

Self-injury. A story on ABC 730 report

This was a program which aired on 26th July 2012 on Australian Broadcasting Company's 7.30 Report. Self-injury is a difficult issue, and something hidden and not well known in the public arena. Our research studies suggest that 8% of the Australian population have deliberately self-injuured at some stage in their lives, and that 1% self-injuured in the 1 month prior to survey (about 200,000 people.
There is a consensus that self-injurers may be treated quite badly within public institutions, and that to re-traumatise someone who is already traumatised, makes things worse rather than better. We need public debate on self-injury
http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2012/s3554593.htm


If you want some background facts and figures based on interviews with over 12,000 Australians, you can download the report here
http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/201207/r978593_10681966.pdf 

Monday, July 23, 2012

Intriguing differences in Firearm Crime between US States

I have been looking at the Guardian report on Firearm Crime <http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state>. As an old solution focussed family therapist, I note there is an intriguing difference between the various US states.
Looking at the extremes we can group into 2:

Group 1
Vermont (0.32), New Hampshire (0.38), Hawaii (0.54), North Dakota (0.61), Iowa (0.69), Idaho (0.77), Utah (0.78), Maine (0.84), Wyoming (0.91), Oregon (0.93), South Dakota (0.98), Minnesota (1.0); all have 2010 rates of firearm murder of 1 per 100,000 or less.

Group 2
Arkansas (3.2), California (3.37), Arizona (3.47), Mississippi (4.05), Michigan (4.16), Delaware (4.26), South Carolina (4.5), Maryland (5.11), Missouri (5.34), Louisiana (7.75), District of Columbia (16); all have 2010 rates of firearm murder at least three times higher – ie ranging from 3.2 to 16 per 100,000.

Less than 30% of murders in Vermont, New Hampshire and Hawaii are gun related, yet 80% of murders in Louisiana, and 75% in DC are gun-related.

The difference between Group 1 and Group 2 does not appear to be geographic in origin. Is it perhaps poitical or socio-economic? What are the group 1 states doing well to enable them to keep their rates of gun related deaths low?

The Guardian does not report suicides by firearm. Can anyone match the states comparing gun-related murder rates with gun-related suicide rates per 100,000?

Sunday, July 22, 2012

Gun Crime Statistics in the US by state

How high is gun crime across the US - and which states have the worst figures? This is the latest data from the Guardian Newspaper in the UK. 

And this is only murders occurring with guns. Given a suicide rate over 30,000 per annum, and a percentage of gun suicides over 50%, you can begin to get a true sense of the impact of firearms in the US.

I am beginning to feel I do not want to visit the USA any more...

Saturday, July 21, 2012

Violent Death in the USA

So, OK, I want to understand this.
According to a Guardian UK report , there were 12,996 murders in the USA in 2010, and of these two thirds (8,775) were by firearms (67.5%). http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/jan/10/gun-crime-us-state
As in many western countries, the suicide rate is higher than the homicide rate. The latest data available from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and reported by The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention < http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?page_id=04ea1254-bd31-1fa3-c549d77e6ca6aa37 > indicates that 36,909 suicide deaths were reported in the U.S. in 2009, an increase of 2.4 percent over the previous year. Suicide rates in the US have been increasing since 2000. Fifty-two percent of suicides are with a firearm, accounting for about 19,000 deaths.
So, there are somewhere in the region of 27,775 deaths per annum from Firearms. That seems like a lot of death. I guess it means there will be an impact on somewhere in the region of 277,750 grieving family and friends (at a conservative estimate). And being traumatic, the grief will go on for a number of years, and maybe down generations. And, of course, repeated next year and the year after...
So why does the USA continue to have laws which allow the purchase of firearms, especially semi-automatics which seem to have been involved in the latest shooting in Aurora, Colorado. Of course the National Rifleman's Association and Lobby go on claiming that "guns don't kill people, people kill people'. But at least in suicide prevention, we know that 'reducing access to means' - that is getting rid of access to guns - has a profound and long-lasting impact on rates of suicide. In Australia, after the Port Arthur Massacre in 1996, the Howard government attempted to rid the country of guns - especially semi-automatics. We in Australia have not had a massacre since. Suicide rates demonstrate that guns (while still available in gun clubs and rural areas) as a cause of suicide has been markedly reduced.
When will the US ever learn?