Search

Background: Minimally adequate treatment (MAT) is intended to represent treatment minimally sufficient for common mental health problems. For children, MAT has been defined over a twelve-month period as either eight or more mental health visits, or four to seven visits plus relevant medication. MAT is used to identify those missing out on adequate care, but it is unknown whether MAT improves children's outcomes.Methods: This paper examines whether MAT is associated with improved outcomes for children. It uses survey data from the nationally representative Longitudinal Study of Australian children on 596 children with mental health problems based on the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire at ages 8-15 years, linked to health service administrative data from 2012 to 2016. Statistical analysis examines the association of MAT with later quality of life (Pediatric Quality of Life Inventory), using a lagged dependent variable model to account for time-varying unobserved confounding.Results: Compared to children with lower levels of treatment, those who received MAT between baseline and follow up had no statistically significant improvement in either quality of life or mental health symptoms.Limitations: The observational data provide insight into real-world practice but require statistical methods to account for selection into treatment.Conclusions: While clinical trials show mental health treatments can be efficacious, this study shows no evidence that children receiving MAT in routine practice have better outcomes. These findings demonstrate the need for better understanding of the nature and impact of children's mental health care as it is delivered and received in routine practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Many countries embarked on reforms of mental health law in the wake of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. These reforms have had varying levels of success. This paper considers the experience of consumers in the Victorian mental health system, drawing on an evaluation that asked consumers and clinicians about their knowledge and experience of rights under the Victorian Mental Health Act, 2014. The data show that consumers were not informed of their rights, were not involved in decisions about treatment, were not able to access safeguards, and could not exercise their rights. The explanations for this include limited staff time, unclear delegations of responsibility, a lack of knowledge, training, and support for rights, and a preference for 'best interests' approaches. The paper identifies tangible reforms that would maintain rights for consumers, including competent refusal of treatment, legislative and regulatory reforms, and training and resourcing. Consumers in this study found that the rights-based framework in the Mental Health Act, 2014 had such an insignificant effect on clinical mental health practice in Victoria that their rights appeared to be illusory. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]