{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.03095684803001876, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.5060975609756095, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Is there a missing-middle in Australian mental health care?

OBJECTIVE
The term 'missing-middle' has been prominent in discourse relating to provision of mental health care in Australia, particularly by proponents of non-governmental youth mental health services such as headspace and related adult services. We investigate whether there is an empirical basis for use of the 'missing-middle' term, founded on qualitative and quantitative research.


CONCLUSIONS
Despite the widespread use of the term 'missing-middle' for advocacy in Australia, there is a lack of research characterising the epidemiological characteristics of the group. The validity of advocacy predicated on the basis of the 'missing-middle' care-gap should be reconsidered. Research, such as systematic service mapping and health needs assessment, is a necessary foundation for evidence-based mental healthcare policy, planning and implementation. Without such research, vital government funds may be deployed to 'missing-middle' programmes that may not improve Australian public health outcomes.