Hostname: page-component-6bb9c88b65-kzqxb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-07-23T00:16:29.271Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Overlooked Population: Physical Health Care for Young, Non-Binary, and Rural Patients With Severe Mental Illness

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 June 2025

Julia Kim
Affiliation:
1College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia
Russell Roberts
Affiliation:
2School of Business, Charles Sturt University, Barthurst, Australia 3Equally Well, Melbourne, Australia
Sharon Lawn
Affiliation:
4College of Medicine and Public Health, Flinders University, Adelaide, Australia 5Lived Experience Australia, Melbourne, Australia
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Aims: Individuals with severe mental illness (SMI) experience significant physical comorbidities, contributing to a 20-year gap in life expectancy compared with the general Australian population. However, disparities persist in how their physical healthcare needs are addressed in healthcare settings. Recent full report from Unequally Unwell (2024) identifies age, gender and rurality as contributing factors to mortality in SMI patients, yet little research has examined how these factors influence access to physical healthcare. This study investigates whether age, gender and rurality predict healthcare engagement, specifically whether patients access their care and whether their physical health is addressed in general practitioner (GP) and psychiatric consultations.

Methods: This study analysed a de-identified dataset from 235 mental health patients and 96 carers who participated in a survey conducted by Lived Experience Australia. Participants provided demographic information and reported on their healthcare experiences, including whether they had visited a GP or a psychiatrist in the past 12 months, and whether their physical health was discussed. Chi-square tests and ordinal logistic regression were used to assess relationships between these variables.

Results: Results showed that age significantly influenced whether a psychiatrist inquired about physical health, with older individuals being more likely to be asked (B=0.879, SE=0.431, z=2.039, OR=2.41, p=0.041). No significant associations were found between rurality and healthcare engagement, though a non-significant trend suggested potential disparities. Similarly, gender identity did not significantly predict physical health discussions, though a weak-to-moderate association was observed for psychiatrist visits (χ²(2)=8.03, p=0.018); an effect which disappeared when non-binary individuals with SMI were removed from the analysis. Notably, engagement with GPs showed no significant differences across demographic groups.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that younger individuals with SMI may be at a greater risk of diagnostic overshadowing for psychiatric care, where their physical health concerns are overlooked. Additionally, non-binary individuals with SMI appear to have lower rates of psychiatric utilisation within 12 months. This disparity may be influenced by systemic barriers such as stigma and discrimination in healthcare settings, which can lead to decreased help-seeking behaviours or suboptimal care experiences for non-binary individuals. This highlights the need for targeted interventions to ensure routine physical health discussion/screening within mental health services, which could facilitate early detection of physical health issues, and help mitigate the mortality gap in this vulnerable population.

Information

Type
Rapid-Fire Presentations
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2025. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal College of Psychiatrists

Footnotes

Abstracts were reviewed by the RCPsych Academic Faculty rather than by the standard BJPsych Open peer review process and should not be quoted as peer-reviewed by BJPsych Open in any subsequent publication.

Submit a response

eLetters

No eLetters have been published for this article.