Search

Objective: Cross-sectional studies have demonstrated that people with disability have substantial inequalities in mental health compared to people without disability. However, it is not known if these inequalities have changed over time. This study compared the mental health of people with and without disability annually from 2003 to 2020 to investigate time trends in disability-related mental health inequalities. Methods: We use annual data (2003–2020) of the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia Survey. Mental health was measured using the five-item Mental Health Inventory. For each wave, we calculated population-weighted age-standardised estimates of mean Mental Health Inventory scores for people with and without disability and calculated the mean difference in Mental Health Inventory score to determine inequalities. Analyses were stratified by age, sex and disability group (sensory or speech, physical, intellectual or learning, psychological, brain injury or stroke, other). Results: From 2003 to 2020, people with disability had worse mental health than people without disability, with average Mental Health Inventory scores 9.8 to 12.1 points lower than for people without disability. For both people with and without disability, Mental Health Inventory scores decreased, indicating worsening mental health, reaching the lowest point for both groups in 2020. For some subpopulations, including young females and people with intellectual disability, brain injury or stroke, mental health inequalities worsened. Conclusion: This paper confirms that people with disability experience worse mental health than people without disability. We add to previous findings by demonstrating that disability-related inequalities in mental health have been sustained for a long period and are worsening in some subpopulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 is a standardised diagnostic interview commonly used in population-based mental health surveys, but has not been used in community-residing Indigenous Australians. This paper seeks to determine whether the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 can produce valid diagnostic information when compared with a diagnostic interview in an urban Indigenous Australian sample. Method: This research was conducted over 10 weeks with adult Indigenous clients of two participating Aboriginal Medical Services in South-East Queensland. Using a cross-sectional, repeated-measures design, participants were administered the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 by an Indigenous interviewer and within 2 weeks attended a second appointment with an Indigenous clinical psychologist, who produced a diagnostic summary. The Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 diagnoses were compared with the diagnostic summaries and clinical concordance between the two measures was calculated. Results: The diagnostic accuracy of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 differed by module. The Post-traumatic Stress Disorder and Major Depression modules had good utility in diagnosing post-traumatic stress disorder and major depressive episodes, respectively; however, the Mania module that provides diagnoses of bipolar disorder was found to be unsuitable for this population. Although there were no identified contraindications for the use of the Generalised Anxiety and Alcohol Use Disorder modules, further research on the diagnostic accuracy of these modules is warranted. Conclusions: The Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 can accurately diagnose some common mental disorders in an Indigenous Australian population, but was found to be unsuitable for others. Given these findings, care should be taken when using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 in epidemiological prevalence studies with Indigenous Australian populations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]