Menssink Jana M, Gao Caroline X, Zbukvic Isabel, Prober Sophie, Kakkos Athina, Watson Alice, Cotton Sue M, Filia Kate M
Faculty of Medicine, Dentistry and Health Sciences, University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC, Australia.
Orygen, Parkville, Melbourne, VIC, Australia.
Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 2025 Feb;59(2):152-161. doi: 10.1177/00048674241299221. Epub 2024 Nov 27.
As highlighted in Australia's Productivity Commission Inquiry into mental health, subgroups of individuals are failing to have their needs met, or are 'falling through the cracks' in the current system - a phenomenon increasingly referred to as the 'missing middle'. A barrier to devising solutions is that the term 'missing middle' is not clearly defined. Using the Delphi method, we aimed to define the term and explore acceptability.
Three expert groups were recruited: carers and young people with a lived experience of mental ill-health; clinicians and service providers; researchers, policymakers and commissioners of mental health services. Using a three-stage Delphi process, we elicited definitions, refined and developed a consensus definition.
Ten subthemes describing the 'missing middle' were identified, with four endorsed across all expert groups from the outset: service gap, inflexibility, inadequate service quality and duration, and social disadvantage. Additional subthemes were later endorsed. Feedback was sought on a consensus-driven definition that encompassed the original four endorsed subthemes. Findings supported a shift to a systemic focus - framing the 'missing middle' as a care gap.
A consensus definition was developed, repositioning the term to a systems lens, describing a 'missing middle service gap'. The definition represents the 'missing middle' as a term to describe a gap in care where existing mental health services are not meeting the needs of individuals in a meaningful way. Research was carried out in relation to youth mental health in Australia and the definition may need to be adapted for other contexts.
正如澳大利亚生产力委员会对心理健康的调查所强调的那样,部分人群的需求未得到满足,或者在当前系统中“被忽视”——这种现象越来越多地被称为“缺失的中间层”。制定解决方案的一个障碍是“缺失的中间层”这一术语没有明确定义。我们旨在运用德尔菲法来定义该术语并探讨其可接受性。
招募了三个专家小组:有心理健康问题生活经历的护理人员和年轻人;临床医生和服务提供者;心理健康服务的研究人员、政策制定者和专员。通过三阶段德尔菲流程,我们引出定义、进行完善并形成了一个共识定义。
确定了十个描述“缺失的中间层”的子主题,其中四个从一开始就在所有专家小组中得到认可:服务差距、缺乏灵活性、服务质量和时长不足以及社会劣势。后来又有其他子主题得到认可。我们就一个基于共识的定义征求了反馈意见,该定义涵盖了最初得到认可的四个子主题。研究结果支持转向系统视角——将“缺失的中间层”界定为护理差距。
形成了一个共识定义,将该术语重新定位到系统视角,描述为“缺失的中间层服务差距”。该定义将“缺失的中间层”表述为一个术语,用于描述护理方面的差距,即现有心理健康服务未能以有意义的方式满足个人需求的情况。这项研究是针对澳大利亚青少年心理健康开展的,该定义可能需要针对其他背景进行调整。