Background: Australia is a high-income country with increasing income inequality. It is unclear whether Australia's well-developed mental healthcare system is making a difference to population mental health and the Federal Government has targeted outcomes accountability in service funding strategies. In high-income countries, evidence generally suggests that income inequalities increase mental disorders among the poor. This study examined psychological-distress rates—a marker of mental ill- health—as varying by income among Australians living within and outside of capital cities. Methods: Secondary data analysis was undertaken using the population-level mental health indicator of the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) as reported for 12,332 adults in the 2011/2012 National Health Survey (NHS) of Australia. K10 scores of 22 and higher indicated high/very-high distress, and 30 and higher denoted very-high distress. Very-high distress levels are strongly predictive of serious mental illness. Results: Among the poorest one-fifth of Australians, 1 in 4 people have psychological distress at a high/very-high level; this compares to about 1 in 20 people in the richest one-fifth of Australians. About 1-in-10 people making up the poorest one-fifth of Australians have current very-high distress, and this reduces to <1-in-50 people in the richest one-fifth. These disparities are consistent both within and outside of capital cities. The national prevalence of elevated distress within income quintiles varies greatly, with Poor/Rich Quintile Ratios of typically 4–5 for high/very-high levels and 7–8 for very-high levels. These effects operate more powerfully in areas marked by higher scores on the Index of Relative Socioeconomic Disadvantage. Conclusions: Altering the strong association of lower income levels in Australia with elevated psychological distress would require a multi-dimensional social policy and healthcare approach. To assess the effectiveness of adopted strategies, population level indicators need to be developed with regular data-collection. The Poor/Rich quintile ratio (P/R QR) for high/very high K10 scores is a potential candidate for a mental health inequality outcome indicator since it is easily calculated from data obtained from a regularly conducted national survey, is easily understood and resonates with a wider audience. Further research on the development of such indicators is also needed.

Several women who undergo treatment for breast cancer experience cancer-related cognitive impairment [CRCI] commonly known as ‘Chemobrain’ or ‘Chemofog’. However, many oncologists and other cancer clinicians are unaware of the high prevalence and severity of these symptoms. Few qualitative studies on the topic provide a comprehensive description of this phenomenon. This study provides a detailed description of women’s experiences of CRCI, its impact on daily life and care received for it following treatment for breast cancer in Australia. Experiences of CRCI included difficulty in remembering things and recalling previously known tasks, inability to stay focussed on a task and other symptoms. The impact on daily life included economic, psychosocial and minimal impacts. Participants described both good care received as well as the clinical team’s lack of understanding of CRCI. We conclude that CRCI in women treated for breast cancer affects memory and attention and has a significant impact on women’s lives. Care provided for CRCI is inadequate in Australia. The economic and psychosocial impacts on women’s daily lives coupled with increasing rates of survivorship highlight the need for more resources to be allocated for the management of these symptoms.

Organisational health literacy (OHL) is a relatively new concept and its role in improving population health outcomes is gaining recognition. There are several terms being used in relation to OHL but there is no consensus about the definition of OHL nor agreement on a single approach to its application within health services. This contested space continues to create discussion and debate between health literacy researchers worldwide. Increasingly, health service accreditation standards are moving towards including OHL and so services need to clearly define their roles and responsibilities in this area. Inherent in this is the need to develop and validate quantifiable measures of OHL change. This is not to say it needs a ‘one-size-fits-all’ approach but rather that terminology needs to be fit for purpose. This paper reviews the literature on OHL, describing and contrasting OHL terminology to assist practitioners seeking OHL information and health services clarifying their roles and responsibilities in this area. What is known about the topic?: Organisational health literacy (OHL) is a new and emerging field. Currently there is no agreed definition or approach to OHL. As a result there is a large number of terms being used to describe OHL and this can make it difficult for practitioners and health services to understand the meanings of the different terms and how they can be used when seeking OHL information and its application to health service policy. What does this paper add?: This paper provides an overview of 19 different OHL terms currently in use and how they apply in a range of health service contexts. What are the implications for practitioners?: This paper provides practitioners with an overview of OHL terms currently in use and how they can be used to seek information and evidence to inform practice or develop health service OHL policy. This will allow health services to ensure they can clearly define their roles and responsibilities in OHL for accreditation purposes by ensuring that terminology use is fit for purpose. Lastly, the paper provides an inventory of terminology to be used when searching for evidence-based practices in OHL. This ensures all relevant papers can be captured, leading to robust and thorough reviews of the evidence most relevant to the OHL area of focus.

Background: In the state of Victoria, Australia, the 111-day lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic exacerbated the population’s prevailing state of poor mental health. Of the 87% of Australians who visit their GP annually, 71% of health problems they discussed related to psychological issues. This review had two objectives: (1) To describe models of mental health integrated care within primary care settings that demonstrated improved mental health outcomes that were transferable to Australian settings, and (2) To outline the factors that contributed to the effective implementation of these models into routine practice. Methods: A scoping review was undertaken to synthesise the evidence in order to inform practice, policymaking, and research. Data were obtained from PubMed, CINAHL and APA PsycINFO. Results: Key elements of effective mental health integrated care models in primary care are: Co-location of mental health and substance abuse services in the primary care setting, presence of licensed mental health clinicians, a case management approach to patient care, ongoing depression monitoring for up to 24 months and other miscellaneous elements. Key factors that contributed to the effective implementation of mental health integrated care in routine practice are the willingness to accept and promote system change, integrated physical and mental clinical records, the presence of a care manager, adequate staff training, a healthy organisational culture, regular supervision and support, a standardised workflow plan and care pathways that included clear role boundaries and the use of outcome measures. The need to develop sustainable funding mechanisms has also been emphasized. Conclusion: Integrated mental health care models typically have a co-located mental health clinician who works closely with the GP and the rest of the primary care team. Implementing mental health integrated care models in Australia requires a ‘whole of system’ change. Lessons learned from the Mental Health Nurse Incentive Program could form the foundation on which this model is implemented in Australia.