An equity indicator for assessing mental healthcare access: a national population case study.

Aims: Achieving equitable healthcare access is a global challenge. Improving whole-population mental health and reducing the global burden of mental disorders is a key recommendation of the 2018 Lancet Global Mental Health Commission, which proposed monitoring national indicators, including the proportion of people with severe mental disorders who are service-users. This study aims to derive an equity indicator from national datasets integrating need, service utilisation and socioeconomic status, and demonstrate its utility in identifying gaps in mental health service use amongst those with the greatest need, thereby guiding equitable healthcare delivery.

Methods: We present a case study of a universal health insurance scheme (Medicare) in Australia. We developed the equity indicator using three national datasets. Geographic areas were linked to an area-based socioeconomic deprivation quintile (Census 2016). Per geographic area, we estimated the number with a mental healthcare need using scores ≥30 on the Kessler-10 (Australian National Health Surveys 2015 and 2018), and obtained the number of services used, defined as mental health-related contacts with general practitioners and mental health professionals (Medicare administrative data 2015-2019). We divided the number of services by the population with an estimated mental healthcare need and averaged these use-rates across each socioeconomic deprivation quintile. The equity indicator is the ratio of the use-rates in the least versus most deprived quintiles.

Results: Those estimated to have the greatest need for mental healthcare in 2019 ranged between 8.2% in the most disadvantaged area quintile (Q1) and 2.4% in the least (Q5), corresponding to a proportional increase of 27.7% in Q1 and 19.5% in Q5 since 2015. Equity-indicator-adjusted service rates of 4.2 (3.8-4.6) and 23.9 (22.4-25.4) showed that individuals with the highest need for care residing in Q1 areas received a stark 6 times fewer services compared to their Q5 counterparts, producing an equity indicator of 6.

Conclusions: As the global prevalence of common mental disorders may be increasing, it is crucial to calculate robust indicators evaluating the equity of mental health service use. In this Australian case study, we developed an equity indicator enabling the direct comparison of geographic areas with different need profiles. The results revealed striking inequities that persisted despite publicly-funded universal healthcare, recent service reforms and being a high-income country. This study demonstrates the importance and feasibility of generating such an indicator to inform and empower communities, healthcare providers and policymakers to pursue equitable service provision.