Search

Background: Although the proportion of men seeking professional mental health care has risen over the past two decades, on average, men continue to attend fewer sessions of psychotherapy and are more likely to drop out of treatment prematurely compared to women. Men account for three-quarters of suicide deaths; furthermore, over half of the males who die by suicide have engaged with mental health care in the 12 months prior to their death. These findings highlight a need to equip mental health practitioners with skills to improve male clients' engagement and mental health outcomes. This article reports the protocol for a randomized controlled trial of Men in Mind, a self-paced online training program purpose-built to advance the clinical competencies of practitioners who provide psychotherapy to male clients. Methods: A randomized controlled trial with two parallel groups will be conducted. Participating practitioners will be randomly allocated, on a 1:1 basis, to the intervention group (Men in Mind training) or a waitlist control group. The primary outcome, efficacy of the training, will be evaluated by pre- to post-training (T1 to T2) changes in scores on the Engaging Men in Therapy Scale (EMITS) in the intervention group, relative to the control group. Discussion: This trial will provide evidence of the efficacy of Men in Mind training, as an interim step towards adjusting content and delivery of the intervention to maximize the potential for sustaining and scaling. Trial registration: The trial was registered prospectively with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry on 3rd December 2021 (ACTRN12621001669886). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In order to profile the health services research community in Australia and New Zealand and describe its capacity, a web-based survey was administered to members of the Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand (HSRAANZ) and delegates of the HSRAANZ's Third Health Services Research and Policy Conference. Results: Responses were received from 191 individuals (68%). The responses of the 165 (86%) who conducted or managed health services research indicated that the health services research community in Australia and New Zealand is characterised by highly qualified professionals who have come to health services research via a range of academic and professional routes (including clinical backgrounds), the majority of whom are women aged between 35 and 54 who have mid- to senior- level appointments. They are primarily employed in universities and, to a lesser extent, government departments and health services. Although most are employed in full time positions, many are only able to devote part of their time to health services research, often juggling this with other professional roles. They rely heavily on external funding, as only half have core funding from their employing institution and around one third have employment contracts of one year or less. Many view issues around building the capacity of the health services research community and addressing funding deficits as crucial if health services research is to be translated into policy and practice. Despite the difficulties they face, most are positive about the support and advice available from peers in their work settings, and many are actively contributing to knowledge through academic and other written outputs. Conclusion: If health services research is to achieve its potential in Australia and New Zealand, policy-makers and funders must take the concerns of the health services research community seriously, foster its development, and contribute to maximising its capacity through a sustainable approach to funding. There is a clear need for a strategic approach, where the health services research community collaborates with competitive granting bodies and government departments to define and fund a research agenda that balances priority-driven and investigator-driven research and which provides support for training and career development. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article introduces this journal's supplement which features some of the best papers presented at the third Health Services Research Association of Australia and New Zealand Conference, held in Melbourne on November 16-19, 2003. The conference was titled "Bridging the Gap: Research and Values to Policy and Practice." The papers published in this issue have gone through the usual refereeing process for the "Journal of Health Services Research and Policy."

This chapter draws on internationally available data to describe the epidemiology of suicide and self-harm in the World Health Organization (WHO) Western Pacific Region. It then describes the suicide prevention activities in the region, using in-depth case studies to highlight some key suicide prevention activities in certain countries/areas and the Global Survey on Suicide Prevention conducted in 2013 by the International Association for Suicide Prevention (IASP) and WHO. It demonstrates that there is considerable variability both between and within low and middle income countries and high income countries, both in terms of rates of suicide and self-harm and in terms of the preventive efforts that have been mobilised to address them. Adequate funding for suicide prevention efforts in the region should be a priority, as should the delivery of a range of suicide prevention approaches. Evaluation and monitoring efforts are also crucial.

Objective: The aim of this paper is to describe the way in which particular Australian and New Zealand mental health services are making use of routine outcome data to foster clinical improvements for consumers., Method: We invited individuals who are responsible for implementing outcome data collection across the two countries to describe exemplary practices occurring within their own services, and present the resultant information in the form of case studies., Results: Outcome measurement is being used to guide clinical decision-making, engage consumers in treatment, foster a collaborative approach to care planning and goal setting, review consumers' progress with treatment, inform questions about consumers' eligibility for given programs, assist with discharge planning, improve the evidence-base on which services are founded, and evaluate particular models of service delivery., Conclusions: A number of mental health services are deriving useful information from routine outcome measurement, and using this to guide clinical practice. The examples provided here may offer some lessons for other services wishing to make better use of outcome data, and there may be some opportunities for the sharing of resources or infrastructure. Services that are already using outcome data to inform their clinical activities, and services that are keen to do so, will need ongoing support.