Abstract
Objective: The term ‘missing-middle’ has been prominent in discourse relating to provision of mental health care in Australia, particularly by proponents of non-governmental youth mental health services such as headspace and related adult services. We investigate whether there is an empirical basis for use of the ‘missing-middle’ term, founded on qualitative and quantitative research. Conclusions: Despite the widespread use of the term ‘missing-middle’ for advocacy in Australia, there is a lack of research characterising the epidemiological characteristics of the group. The validity of advocacy predicated on the basis of the ‘missing-middle’ care-gap should be reconsidered. Research, such as systematic service mapping and health needs assessment, is a necessary foundation for evidence-based mental healthcare policy, planning and implementation. Without such research, vital government funds may be deployed to ‘missing-middle’ programmes that may not improve Australian public health outcomes.
Original language | English |
---|---|
Pages (from-to) | 323-325 |
Number of pages | 3 |
Journal | Australasian Psychiatry |
Volume | 30 |
Issue number | 3 |
Early online date | 1 Dec 2021 |
DOIs | |
Publication status | Published - Jun 2022 |
Keywords
- care-gaps
- epidemiological data
- evidence-based mental health policy
- missing middle
- programme outcome evaluation