Introduction
Adolescence is the peak period for the onset of mental ill health. Epidemiology consistently shows that around half of all lifetime mental disorders emerge by the mid-teens, and national data place people aged 16 to 24 at the highest twelve-month prevalence of any age group, with close to two in five affected (Australian Bureau of Statistics [ABS], 2023). Psychological distress among young Australians has also trended upwards over the past decade (Australian Institute of Health and Welfare [AIHW], 2024). Early, accessible intervention is therefore regarded as one of the highest-value opportunities in the mental health system, since it can alter the trajectory of a disorder before it consolidates into adulthood.
Access to that intervention is unevenly distributed. Approximately seven million Australians live outside the major cities, and the mental health workforce is concentrated in the cities: the supply of psychologists and psychiatrists per head falls with each step of the Australian Statistical Geography Standard (ASGS) remoteness classification (AIHW, 2023). Rural adolescents face compounding obstacles: dependence on carers for transport across long distances, heightened visibility and stigma in small communities where the local clinician may also be a family acquaintance, and long waiting periods for the services that do exist. The result is a gap between need and provision that is widest precisely where need, measured by rates of self-harm and psychological distress, is frequently greatest (AIHW, 2024).
Telehealth has been promoted as a partial remedy for this maldistribution. In March 2020 the Australian Government added whole-of-population telehealth items to the Medicare Benefits Schedule (MBS), and these arrangements were made a permanent feature of Medicare from January 2022 (Department of Health and Aged Care, 2023). Professional bodies, including the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists (RANZCP, 2021), endorse telepsychiatry for rural and remote populations. Yet the assumption that funded availability translates into engagement and benefit for rural adolescents remains largely untested. Whether young people in regional and remote Australia take up telehealth care, remain engaged, and improve as a result is the question this proposal addresses.
Problem Statement
Three limitations constrain the current evidence base. First, most Australian effectiveness data derive from adult users of self-selected national digital services, who already possess the connectivity, motivation and literacy that engagement requires (Titov et al., 2020); adolescents differ developmentally, depend more on carers, and weight privacy and confidentiality heavily. Second, the field has concentrated on efficacy, whether the therapy works by video, while the binding constraint in youth mental health is more often engagement: whether young people attend, form a working relationship with the clinician, and return. Third, the role of carers as gatekeepers, and of household digital inclusion as an enabling condition, has rarely been examined in a rural adolescent sample. Without evidence on who engages, who disengages, and why, service planners cannot direct a limited rural mental health budget to the settings and supports that make telehealth work.
Aim and Research Questions
The proposed study aims to examine engagement with, and short-term outcomes of, telehealth mental health services among adolescents aged 13 to 17 in rural and remote Australia, and to identify the factors that shape engagement. Three research questions are posed:
- What are the levels and patterns of engagement, defined as uptake, session attendance, dropout and therapeutic alliance, among rural adolescents receiving telehealth mental health care, and how do these vary by remoteness and digital inclusion?
- To what extent is telehealth engagement associated with change in psychological distress, anxiety and depression symptoms, and wellbeing across a three-month period?
- How do clinicians and families understand the barriers and enablers to sustained engagement with rural adolescent telehealth?
Literature Review
Efficacy of telehealth-delivered mental health care
The efficacy case for delivering mental health care at a distance is reasonably well established for adults. Titov et al. (2020) reported outcomes from an Australian national digital mental health service, finding symptom improvement among regional and remote users comparable to that of metropolitan users, with the removal of travel and referral requirements central to engagement. The adolescent-specific evidence is thinner, and much of it is observational rather than controlled. Importantly, equivalence findings are conditional: they hold when a working alliance is established, which cannot be assumed for a young person consulting a clinician from home.
Engagement and its barriers
Engagement, rather than efficacy, is the more persistent problem in youth mental health. In a widely cited systematic review, Gulliver et al. (2010) identified stigma, a preference for self-reliance, concerns about confidentiality and limited mental health literacy as the dominant barriers to help-seeking among young people. These barriers do not disappear when care moves online but are reshaped: confidentiality acquires a spatial dimension, since a private consultation presupposes a private space at home that not every rural household can provide. Digital inclusion is a further precondition. The Australian Digital Inclusion Index shows that access, affordability and digital ability all decline with remoteness, with the widest gaps in remote and low-income communities (Thomas et al., 2023). For an adolescent reliant on a shared device or a capped, intermittent connection, a video consultation may be neither reliable nor private.
headspace and digital youth services
Australia has invested in youth-specific service models that frame any telehealth study. The national headspace network was designed to lower the threshold for help-seeking through integrated, youth-friendly care, and reaches a young, previously untreated population (Rickwood et al., 2014). Its digital arm extends telephone, web and video counselling beyond the centre (headspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation, 2023). The forced transition during the COVID-19 pandemic produced the first large-scale evidence on how youth services adapt: Nicholas et al. (2021) surveyed clinicians and young people and found that, while many valued the flexibility and reduced burden of telehealth, others experienced disrupted rapport, technical difficulty and reduced privacy; preferences were heterogeneous rather than uniformly positive. That heterogeneity is precisely what a rural adolescent study must explain.
Taken together, the literature establishes that telehealth mental health care can be effective, that engagement rather than efficacy is the critical constraint for young people, and that digital inclusion and privacy condition whether engagement is possible. What is missing is prospective Australian evidence measuring engagement, its determinants and its outcomes in rural adolescents specifically.
Theoretical Framework
The study is framed by the patient-centred access model of Levesque et al. (2013), which conceptualises access as co-produced at the interface between health systems and populations. On the supply side, the framework specifies five dimensions of accessibility: approachability, acceptability, availability and accommodation, affordability, and appropriateness. Each is matched to a corresponding ability of the population: the ability to perceive a need, to seek care, to reach it, to pay for it, and to engage with it. Access is achieved only when a service dimension and a population ability align.
The framework suits telehealth for rural adolescents for three reasons. It treats access as relational rather than a matter of geographic proximity, which fits a setting where distance has been notionally dissolved by technology yet other barriers persist. It gives explicit standing to the population side, capturing the digital inclusion, carer support and confidence that determine whether a funded service is used. And its final dimension, the ability to engage, foregrounds the therapeutic alliance and continuity that this study treats as central outcomes. Figure 1 presents the resulting conceptual model.
Methodology
Design
An explanatory sequential mixed-methods design is proposed. A quantitative strand measures engagement and outcomes prospectively among a cohort of rural adolescents; a subsequent qualitative strand of clinician interviews then explains the quantitative patterns, particularly any variation in engagement across remoteness and digital-inclusion categories. Integrating the strands lets the study establish what is happening and why.
Participants and sampling
The quantitative sample will comprise approximately 300 adolescents aged 13 to 17 commencing telehealth mental health care through regional and rural headspace centres and community mental health services, each with a participating carer who completes proxy measures. Purposive site selection will ensure representation across the inner regional, outer regional and remote categories of the ASGS (ABS, 2023). A sample of 300, after attrition, supports detection of a small to medium within-person change over three months and comparison across remoteness strata. For the qualitative strand, a purposive sample of 15 clinicians who deliver telehealth to rural adolescents will be recruited for interview, consistent with reaching thematic saturation in a focused professional sample.
Measures
Engagement and outcomes will be assessed with validated instruments and service-record indicators, as summarised in Table 1. Adolescent questionnaires will be administered at intake and three months, with carer-report and service-record data collected in parallel.
Table 1: Constructs, instruments and their role in the analytic model
| Construct | Instrument | Items and response format | Published reliability | Role in analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Psychological distress | Kessler Psychological Distress Scale, K10 (ABS, 2023) | 10 items, 5-point frequency | α = .89 to .93 | Primary outcome |
| Anxiety and depression symptoms | Revised Children’s Anxiety and Depression Scale, 25-item form (RCADS-25; Chorpita et al., 2000) | 25 items, 4-point | α = .82 to .87 | Outcome |
| Emotional and behavioural difficulties | Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ), carer report | 25 items, 3-point | α = .73 to .82 | Outcome, carer proxy |
| Mental wellbeing | WHO-5 Wellbeing Index | 5 items, 6-point | α = .82 to .90 | Outcome |
| Therapeutic alliance | Working Alliance Inventory, Short Revised (WAI-SR) | 12 items, 5-point | α = .85 to .91 | Engagement mechanism |
| Service satisfaction | Client Satisfaction Questionnaire (CSQ-8) | 8 items, 4-point | α = .86 to .94 | Engagement outcome |
| Digital inclusion | Items adapted from the Australian Digital Inclusion Index (Thomas et al., 2023) | 9 items, mixed format | Index, not scaled | Enabling factor |
| Behavioural engagement | Sessions attended, cancellations and dropout from service records | Counts and status | Not applicable | Primary engagement measure |
| Demographics, remoteness and service use | Investigator-developed items, ASGS classification (ABS, 2023) | 12 items, mixed format | Not applicable | Covariates and stratifier |
Qualitative strand and analysis
Semi-structured clinician interviews will follow a guide organised around the five access dimensions of Levesque et al. (2013), probing what helps and hinders sustained engagement for rural adolescents. Interviews will be transcribed and examined using reflexive thematic analysis. Quantitative analysis will proceed in three stages aligned to the research questions: descriptive profiling of engagement by remoteness and digital inclusion; mixed-effects models estimating change in distress, symptoms and wellbeing from intake to three months, with engagement indicators as predictors; and regression models identifying the enabling factors associated with attendance and alliance. The strands will be integrated through a joint display setting the quantitative associations alongside the clinician accounts that illuminate them.
Ethical Considerations and Participant Safeguarding
The project will be submitted for full review by the administering university’s Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC) and conducted in accordance with the National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Human Research (National Health and Medical Research Council [NHMRC], 2023). Because participants are minors experiencing mental ill health, the study is treated as more than low risk, and four safeguards are proposed.
First, consent will be developmentally appropriate. As all participants are under 18, written consent will be sought from a parent or guardian together with the adolescent’s written assent, using plain language and a comprehension check. Consistent with the National Statement, the capacity of older adolescents to consent in their own right will be recognised where appropriate, and procedures will protect the young person’s privacy from carers during sessions and in the handling of their responses (NHMRC, 2023).
Second, a written distress protocol will operate throughout, an obligation heightened by the use of symptom and distress measures that may surface risk. The study benefits from an embedded clinical safety net, since every participant is already connected to a treating service. Support information for Lifeline, Kids Helpline and eheadspace will appear at every assessment, elevated scores will prompt a tailored response, and any disclosure indicating risk of harm will trigger documented escalation to the treating clinician and, where required, emergency services. A registered psychologist will oversee the protocol.
Third, the study will use non-stigmatising, person-first language throughout its materials, framing help-seeking as a constructive step and avoiding any suggestion that distress reflects personal deficiency. Fourth, data will be stored de-identified on encrypted Australian servers, with the re-identification key held separately to enable follow-up, and findings will be reported at group level so that adolescents in small rural communities cannot be identified. A remunerated youth advisory group will review all participant-facing materials.
Project Timeline
The project is scheduled over twelve months, as set out in Table 2. Ethics approval gates all data collection, and the qualitative strand follows preliminary analysis so interviews can probe the observed patterns.
Table 2: Twelve-month project timeline by phase, activity and week
| Phase | Activity | Weeks |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Establishment | Finalise protocol, convene youth advisory group, prepare and lodge HREC application, obtain approval | 1-8 |
| 2. Instrument setup and pilot | Configure secure survey platform, adapt measures, pilot with 20 adolescents, rehearse distress protocol | 9-14 |
| 3. Recruitment and baseline | Recruit approximately 300 adolescents and carers across remoteness strata, administer intake assessment | 15-28 |
| 4. Follow-up assessment | Administer three-month follow-up, collate service-record engagement data | 29-36 |
| 5. Quantitative analysis | Data cleaning, reliability checks, descriptive, change and regression analyses | 33-40 |
| 6. Clinician interviews | Recruit and interview 15 clinicians, transcribe recordings | 37-44 |
| 7. Qualitative analysis and integration | Reflexive thematic analysis, joint-display integration with quantitative findings | 45-50 |
| 8. Dissemination | Manuscript preparation, plain-language summary for participants, briefing for the youth mental health sector | 49-52 |
Significance
The study offers three contributions. Empirically, it will produce the first prospective Australian account of telehealth engagement and short-term outcomes among rural adolescents, stratified by remoteness and digital inclusion, and usable by service planners and MBS telehealth administrators deciding where to direct capacity. Practically, should privacy, digital inclusion and an early therapeutic alliance prove the pivotal enablers, the findings would justify targeted investment in household connectivity, private consulting spaces, and clinician training in alliance-building at a distance, rather than assuming that funded availability suffices. Theoretically, it extends the patient-centred access framework of Levesque et al. (2013) into virtual youth care, testing whether its population-side abilities predict engagement among rural adolescents.
Limitations
Several limitations are acknowledged. The design is observational, with no control group, so it can describe associations between engagement and outcome but cannot establish that telehealth caused improvement. Because the sample is drawn from adolescents who have already reached a service, it describes engagement among those who present and is silent on rural young people who never seek help, who remain the harder policy problem. A three-month window captures early change but not longer trajectories or sustained recovery. Reliance on self-report and carer-report introduces social-desirability and proxy bias, and small remote-area numbers will limit the precision of subgroup comparisons. Findings from Australian rural adolescents should not be generalised to metropolitan youth or other service systems.
Conclusion
Rural adolescents in Australia carry a high burden of mental ill health while living furthest from the workforce equipped to help them (AIHW, 2023, 2024). The permanent addition of telehealth items to the MBS has removed a funding barrier and created the conditions for virtual youth care at scale (Department of Health and Aged Care, 2023), but funded availability is not the same as engagement, and engagement is not the same as benefit. By measuring engagement, its determinants and its outcomes prospectively in the same rural adolescents, and asking clinicians and families to explain the patterns observed, the study aims to identify the modifiable conditions under which telehealth genuinely narrows the rural mental health gap. The intent is not to promote technology for its own sake, but to understand what allows a young person in a country town to connect with care and to stay connected long enough to recover.
References
Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2023). National study of mental health and wellbeing, 2020-2022. ABS.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2023). Rural and remote health. AIHW.
Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. (2024). Australia’s youth: Mental illness and psychological distress. AIHW.
Chorpita, B. F., Yim, L., Moffitt, C., Umemoto, L. A., & Francis, S. E. (2000). Assessment of symptoms of DSM-IV anxiety and depression in children: A Revised Child Anxiety and Depression Scale. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 38(8), 835-855.
Department of Health and Aged Care. (2023). MBS telehealth services: Post-implementation review. Australian Government.
Gulliver, A., Griffiths, K. M., & Christensen, H. (2010). Perceived barriers and facilitators to mental health help-seeking in young people: A systematic review. BMC Psychiatry, 10, 113.
headspace National Youth Mental Health Foundation. (2023). headspace national youth mental health survey 2023. headspace.
Levesque, J.-F., Harris, M. F., & Russell, G. (2013). Patient-centred access to health care: Conceptualising access at the interface of health systems and populations. International Journal for Equity in Health, 12, 18.
National Health and Medical Research Council. (2023). National statement on ethical conduct in human research. NHMRC.
Nicholas, J., Bell, I. H., Thompson, A., Valentine, L., Simsir, P., Sheppard, H., & Adams, S. (2021). Implementation lessons from the transition to telehealth during COVID-19: A survey of clinicians and young people from youth mental health services. Psychiatry Research, 299, 113848.
Rickwood, D. J., Telford, N. R., Parker, A. G., Tanti, C. J., & McGorry, P. D. (2014). headspace, Australia’s innovation in youth mental health: Who are the clients and why are they presenting? Medical Journal of Australia, 200(2), 108-111.
Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists. (2021). Telehealth in psychiatry [Position statement]. RANZCP.
Thomas, J., McCosker, A., Parkinson, S., Hegarty, K., Featherstone, D., Kennedy, J., Holcombe-James, I., Ormond-Parker, L., & Ganley, L. (2023). Measuring Australia’s digital divide: Australian Digital Inclusion Index 2023. RMIT University, Swinburne University of Technology, and Telstra.
Titov, N., Dear, B. F., Nielssen, O., Staples, L. G., & Kayrouz, R. (2020). User characteristics and outcomes from an Australian national digital mental health service. Internet Interventions, 20, 100310.