Key findings from the 2020–21 NWS: Accessible data

Figure 1. Professions of survey respondents

Return to survey key findings

Figure 2. Survey respondent profile

Return to survey key findings

Figure 3. Where survey respondents work

Return to survey key findings

Figure 4. Areas of disadvantage

* Sample size represents survey respondents who provided a postcode and answered subscale items.
Return to survey key findings

Figure 5. Average scores of child mental health workforce capability domains

Return to survey key findings

Figure 6. Infant mental health capability average ratings for selected professions

Return to survey key findings

Figure 7. Differences in mean scores on child mental health workforce capabilities by exposure to Emerging Minds resources

Return to survey key findings

National Workforce Survey for Parent, Family and Child Mental Health 2020–21: Methodology

Survey items

The 2020–21 survey took respondents about 15 minutes to complete and comprised 78 items divided in to three sections:

• A bit about you: 13 items about the respondent’s demographics and work role
• National Workforce Survey for Family, Parent and Child Mental Health: 41 items designed to assess knowledge and capability in child mental health knowledge, confidence, practice, organisation, and included on special topics of trauma and adversity and infant mental health.
• A bit about Emerging Minds and the National Workforce Centre for Child Mental Health: 24 items designed to capture awareness, engagement with and impact of Emerging Minds resources.

Data collection

The survey was open from 10 December 2020 to 9 March 2021 and was accessed via an online platform called Zoho Survey. A generic survey link was shared widely by Emerging Minds networks and key stakeholder organisations in health, social and community service sectors including peak bodies and government departments.

Respondents

Emerging Minds invited participation by health, social and community services workers in Australia who:

• work with adult clients
• work with child clients
• work with families; and
• don’t work directly with clients, but work in health, social or community service sectors.

Respondents were provided with an electronic information sheet and were required to indicate consent to participate in the survey. Survey responses were anonymous. Participation was incentivised by the chance to win an iPad for completing the survey. Contact details entered for the prize draw were collected by another form separate from the survey responses.

Cultural safety considerations

Each survey page included an Acknowledgement of Country in the footer. The design of the survey and results were reviewed in collaboration with Emerging Minds’ Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander National Consultancy Group.

Ethics

The National Workforce Survey for Parent, Family and Child Mental Health was covered by ethical approval from the Parenting Research Centre’s Human Research Ethics Committee.

Data analyses

IBM SPSS Statistics 27 software was used to collate and analyse survey results.

Demographic and professional characteristics were examined to determine the profile of the sample. Combinations of demographic characteristics and variables of interest were cross-tabulated to identify specific differences between survey participant groups. An exploratory factor analysis was performed to establish statistical subscales – essentially the survey items that could be combined into different constructs of child mental health practice. A regression analysis was conducted to determine which variables in the survey were best at predicting the results of another variable.

These initial results are largely concerned with mean scores of agreement with statements and subscales on a seven-point scale, where 1 = strongly disagree and 7 = strongly agree. We interpret scores 5–6 as aligning with the sentiment ‘slightly agree to agree’, meaning respondents are showing a moderate level of capability but there is room for improvement. Scores 6–7 showed high levels of competence. Scores of 4 align with a centre point of the scale, meaning ‘neither agree nor disagree’ and showed the workforce is ambiguous and not demonstrating confidence in their capabilities. Scores below 4 aligned with varying degrees of disagreement, demonstrating a workforce with low capability.

Return to survey key findings