CLINIC STATISTICS
Referral sources are presented in Table 2. There was an increase in referrals in 2009 due to increased advertising to GP practices and schools about the University programs. Paid advertisements in newspapers were trialled; but this was not successful in raising the profile of the clinic to the public.
The increase in percentage of clients who found out about the clinic from their school teachers and counsellors (36% vs 29% in 2008) which suggests that advertising our programs through school email networks has been successful. Referrals from psychologists and allied health professionals have also improved from 11% to 20%. However, referrals from medical practitioners reduced from 19% to 11% over 2009 which suggests that Medicare changes have had an impact on referral patterns. Also we need to more actively keep medical practices aware of our services.
Table 2
How clients found out about the clinic
(excluding MMM which was predominantly media release - radio, newspaper)
| Referral Source | Number | Percent |
| School (teachers, counsellors) | 57 | 36 |
| Psychologists and other Allied Health professionals (speech pathologist, social worker) |
32 | 20 |
| Medical Practitioner (GP, Paediatrician) | 18 | 11 |
| Tertiary Education (University website and personnel, TAFE) | 14 | 9 |
| Family/Friend | 12 | 8 |
| Child, Adolescent and Adult Mental Health Services (CAMHS, Kaleidoscope, NEXUS) |
11 | 7 |
| Past Client | 6 | 4 |
| Advertising (radio, newspaper, Internet) | 5 | 3 |
| Community Services (Lifeline, Support group, Essential Moves program) | 4 | 2 |
| TOTAL | 159 | |
In 2009 there were 234 clients treated at the University Psychology Clinic (see Table 3). Approximately half (53%) received individual therapy, predominantly for anxiety problems, and 40% were involved in group programs. This represents more than a 50% increase from 2008 (109 clients) predominantly due to the new group program for menopause but also an increase in individual therapy clients. It is possible that reduced fees and increased advertising may have contributed to the increase in number of clients attending for treatment.
Table 3
Primary Presenting Problems
| Type of therapy, Group program or Assessment | Number of Clients | Percentage |
| Individual therapy | ||
| Anxiety | 75 | 32 |
| Anxiety/Depression | 19 | 8 |
| Depression | 5 | 2 |
| Behavioural Management (eg anger, parenting skills) | 11 | 5 |
| Supportive Counselling (eg grief, adjustment) | 8 | 3 |
| Interpersonal difficulties | 6 | 2 |
| Subtotal | 124 | |
| Group Programs | ||
| Cool Kids Group Anxiety Program (CK) | 18 | 8 |
| Menopause Made Manageable (MMM) | 75 | 32 |
| Subtotal | 93 | |
| Cognitive Assessment | 17 | 7 |
| TOTAL | 234 | |
Individual Therapy Clients
The age of individual clients treated at the Clinic (excluding Cognitive Assessments and group programs) ranged from 5 to 63 years of age. Breakdown by age and gender is shown below.
In 2009, 46% of individual clients were males which is consistent with previous years except for 2008 where 64% were males. While the number of clients attending the Cool Kids anxiety group program has not changed over the past few years, there has been a gradually increasing percentage of children attending for individual therapy (46% in 2006, 58% in 2007, 66% in 2008 and 70% in 2009).
Cool Kids Group Program
The age of participants in the primary aged Cool Kids group program ranged from 8 to 12 years of age. Breakdown by age and gender is shown below.
There was a change in age of children attending Cool Kids with a reduced number of 8 year olds (5% vs 31% in 2008), 9 year olds (11% vs 19% in 2008), 11 year olds (17% vs 25% in 2008). With an increase in 10 year olds (39% vs 6% in 2008) and 12 year olds (28% vs 19%). The proportion of males (61%) was consistent with 2008 (62%).
Cognitive Assessment Clients
The age of Cognitive Assessment clients ranged from 6 to 49 years of age. Breakdown by age and gender is shown below.
There were also changes in age of clients who received a cognitive assessment. The number of 6-10 year olds was consistent (29% vs 32% in 2008) but there was a reduction in number of 11-17 year olds (35% vs 47% in 2008) and an increase in 18-25 year olds (24% vs 16% in 2008) and particularly 26-49 year olds (12% vs 5%). The proportion of males (35%) was reduced compared to 2008 (68%).