Not letting the ideal be the enemy of the good: the case of the Better Access evaluation.

The authors reflects on the editorials by A. F. Jorm, N. Allen and H. Jackson, and I. Hickie and colleagues which commented on their study of patient outcomes associated with the Better Access programme. The authors clarify some of the issues highlighted by the said authors on topics including methodology, the size and representativeness of the sample, and allowing providers to enter data for patients. The authors note that their study's results contribute in the debate about Better Access.