More smoke and mirrors: Fifteen further reasons to doubt the effectiveness of headspace

Stephen R. Kisely*, Tarun Bastiampillai, Stephen Allison, Jeffrey C.L. Looi

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

    3 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Objective: Commentary on the debate concerning the effectiveness of headspace, including the most recent independent evaluation of its services. Conclusions: The available evaluations indicate that headspace does not deliver therapy of adequate duration that results in clinically significant improvement. Most evaluations have used either short-term process measures or uncontrolled satisfaction surveys, and where there have been data on outcomes using standardised instruments, findings have been disappointing. Costs are poorly quantified and probably underestimated. Even so, headspace as a primary care intervention costs twice as much as a mental health consultation by a general practitioner and, depending on the assumptions, may not be cost effective.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)282-291
    Number of pages10
    JournalAustralasian Psychiatry
    Volume31
    Issue number3
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - Jun 2023

    Fingerprint

    Dive into the research topics of 'More smoke and mirrors: Fifteen further reasons to doubt the effectiveness of headspace'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this