Abstract
BACKGROUND: In response to the well-documented fragmentation within its mental health system, Australia has witnessed recently rapid expansion in the availability of digital mental health care navigation tools. These tools focus on assisting consumers to identify and access appropriate mental health care services, the proliferation of such varied web-based resources risks perpetuating further fragmentation and confusion for consumers. There is a pressing need to systematically assess the characteristics, comprehensiveness, and validity of these navigation tools, especially as demand for digital resources continues to escalate. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to identify and describe the current landscape of Australian digital mental health care navigation tools, with a focus on assessing their comprehensiveness, identifying potential gaps, and the extent to which they meet the needs of various stakeholders. METHODS: A comprehensive infoveillance approach was used to identify Australian digital mental health care navigation tools. This process involved a systematic web-based search complemented by consultations with subject matter experts. Identified navigation tools were independently screened by 2 authors, while data extraction was conducted by 3 authors. Extracted data were mapped to key domains and subdomains relevant to navigation tools. RESULTS: From just a handful in 2020, by February 2024 this study identified 102 mental health care navigation tools across Australia. Primary Health Networks (n=37) and state or territory governments (n=21) were the predominant developers of these tools. While the majority of navigation tools were primarily designed for consumer use, many also included resources for health professionals and caregivers. Notably, no navigation tools were specifically designed for mental health care planners. Nearly all tools (except one) featured directories of mental health care services, although their functionalities varied: 27% (n=27) provided referral information, 20% (n=21) offered geolocated service maps, 12% (n=12) included diagnostic screening capabilities, and 7% (n=7) delineated care pathways. CONCLUSIONS: The variability of navigation tools designed to facilitate consumer access to mental health services could paradoxically contribute to further confusion. Despite the significant expansion of digital navigation tools in recent years, substantial gaps and challenges remain. These include inconsistencies in tool formats, resulting in variable information quality and validity; a lack of regularly updated service information, including wait times and availability for new clients; insufficient details on program exclusion criteria; and limited accessibility and user-friendliness. Moreover, the inclusion of self-assessment screening tools is infrequent, further limiting the utility of these resources. To address these limitations, we propose the development of a national directory of mental health navigation tools as a centralized resource, alongside a system to guide users toward the most appropriate tool for their individual needs. Addressing these issues will enhance consumer confidence and contribute to the overall accessibility, reliability, and utility of digital navigation tools in Australia's mental health system.