Search

Background: headspace centres provide enhanced primary mental healthcare for young people. A priority is to provide services for all young people irrespective of a range of social disadvantages or social exclusion. The aims of this study were to: (i) delineate extent of social inclusion across domains of housing, studying/employment, functioning, alcohol, and other drug use; and (ii) map profiles of young people deemed vulnerable to experiencing additional barriers to accessing services based on their social inclusion domains (e.g., those living in unstable housing, not in employment/education, and/or experiencing intersecting or multiple forms of disadvantage or difficulties), including detailing their clinical characteristics., Methods: Young people were recruited from five headspace centres. Data relevant to social inclusion were examined. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to determine overlap between vulnerable groups, functional, social, clinical, and behavioural factors., Results: 1107 young people participated, aged 12-25 years (M = 18.1 years, SD = 3.3), most living in stable housing (96.5%) and engaged in studying/employment (84.8%). Specific vulnerabilities were evident in young people with NEET status (15.2%); in unstable accommodation (3.5%); of culturally diverse backgrounds (CALD) (12.2%); living in regional areas (36.1%); and identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, intersex, queer/questioning, and asexual plus (LGBTIQA+; 28.2%). Higher levels of distress, substance use, functional impairment, and lower social support were reported by those who were NEET and/or in unstable housing. LGBTIQA+ status was associated with high distress, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation., Conclusions: Most participants reported good social support, stable housing, and engagement in work or education. Those deemed vulnerable were likely to experience social exclusion across multiple domains and reported more mental health problems. The co-occurrence of mental ill-health and social exclusion highlights the importance of integrated mental healthcare., (© 2021. Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature.)

BackgroundAlthough mental health information on the internet is often of poor quality, relatively little is known about the quality of websites, such as Wikipedia, that involve participatory information sharing. The aim of this paper was to explore the quality of user-contributed mental health-related information on Wikipedia and compare this with centrally controlled information sources.MethodContent on 10 mental health-related topics was extracted from 14 frequently accessed websites (including Wikipedia) providing information about depression and schizophrenia, Encyclopaedia Britannica, and a psychiatry textbook. The content was rated by experts according to the following criteria: accuracy, up-to-dateness, breadth of coverage, referencing and readability.ResultsRatings varied significantly between resources according to topic. Across all topics, Wikipedia was the most highly rated in all domains except readability.ConclusionsThe quality of information on depression and schizophrenia on Wikipedia is generally as good as, or better than, that provided by centrally controlled websites, Encyclopaedia Britannica and a psychiatry textbook. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]