Defining and measuring psychosocial disability in Australia: Assessment of national surveys and administrative datasets

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the alignment in defining and measuring psychosocial disability and/or mental health challenges across major Australian national mental health data sources. METHODS: We reviewed the definition and measurement of psychosocial disability and mental health challenges in two stages. First, we examined the data items across five national data sources: the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC), the National Health Survey (NHS), the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHW), the Census and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) administrative data. In the second stage, we analysed the prevalence of psychosocial disability and mental health challenges across the datasets. RESULTS: The definition and measurement approaches for psychosocial disability and mental health challenges vary across data sources, reflecting differences in the conditions included and the purpose for which data were collected. Psychosocial disability is inconsistently defined: broad population surveys (SDAC, NHS) include neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative conditions, whereas the NDIS captures only severe mental illnesses with substantial functional impairment. Prevalence across Australia varied widely from 42.9% for lifetime mental disorders (NSMHW) and 26.1% for long-term conditions (NHS), down to 6% when strictly defining psychosocial disability (SDAC). CONCLUSIONS: There are variations in definitions and measurement across major Australian mental health data sources with respect to conditions captured in the datasets and the definitions used. Researchers and policymakers should therefore critically appraise - and where possible adjust for - these variations when using these data to inform strategic decisions and resource allocation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Published
2026-06-26
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00048674261450886
Primary Topic
Mental Health Treatment and Access
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00

Funders

Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Defining and measuring psychosocial disability in Australia: Assessment of national surveys and administrative datasets

George Disney, Firew Tekle Bobo, Bernie Mullin, Joel Hollier et al.
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
Mental Health Treatment and Access
article

Defining and measuring psychosocial disability in Australia: Assessment of national surveys and administrative datasets

George Disney, Firew Tekle Bobo, Bernie Mullin, Joel Hollier, Jennifer Smith-Merry, Kuo-Yi Jade Chang
article en

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess the alignment in defining and measuring psychosocial disability and/or mental health challenges across major Australian national mental health data sources. METHODS: We reviewed the definition and measurement of psychosocial disability and mental health challenges in two stages. First, we examined the data items across five national data sources: the Survey of Disability, Ageing and Carers (SDAC), the National Health Survey (NHS), the National Study of Mental Health and Wellbeing (NSMHW), the Census and the National Disability Insurance Scheme (NDIS) administrative data. In the second stage, we analysed the prevalence of psychosocial disability and mental health challenges across the datasets. RESULTS: The definition and measurement approaches for psychosocial disability and mental health challenges vary across data sources, reflecting differences in the conditions included and the purpose for which data were collected. Psychosocial disability is inconsistently defined: broad population surveys (SDAC, NHS) include neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative conditions, whereas the NDIS captures only severe mental illnesses with substantial functional impairment. Prevalence across Australia varied widely from 42.9% for lifetime mental disorders (NSMHW) and 26.1% for long-term conditions (NHS), down to 6% when strictly defining psychosocial disability (SDAC). CONCLUSIONS: There are variations in definitions and measurement across major Australian mental health data sources with respect to conditions captured in the datasets and the definitions used. Researchers and policymakers should therefore critically appraise - and where possible adjust for - these variations when using these data to inform strategic decisions and resource allocation.

Australian & New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry
The University of Sydney (AU), The University of Melbourne (AU), Melbourne Health (AU)
Australian Research Council
Openalex Percentile: Top 4%
Mental Health Treatment and Access
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.