Psychological Distress in Australian Onshore and Offshore Immigration Detention Centres from 2014–2018

Essex, Ryan; Kalocsányiová, Erika; Young, Peter; McCrone, Paul

doi:10.1007/s10903-022-01335-7

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…What is routine in Australia, such as evaluation of adolescent capacity, can be problematic at the Narau detention centre 6. The needs of detainees are also higher than that of the Australian general population7 and the longer the detention, the higher the detainees’ mental health needs 8. Australia has been a focus of international human rights scrutiny since 2001 (or before) for their deterrence-based immigration policies.…”

Section: Australian Detention Centresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dirty work: well-intentioned mental health workers cannot ameliorate harms in offshore detention

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Professional providers of mental health services are motivated to help people, including, or especially, vulnerable people. We analyse the ethical implications of mental health providers accepting employment at detention centres that operate out of the normal regulatory structure of the modern state. Specifically, we examine tensions and moral harms experienced by providers at the Australian immigration detention centre on the island of Nauru. Australia has adopted indefinite offshore detention for asylum-seekers arriving by boat as part of a deterrence strategy that relies on making detainment conditions harsh. This has known deleterious mental health effects. As a token to fiduciary care obligations, Australia employs mental health professionals to work on Nauru. These providers are often motivated to make a positive difference for detainees’ lives. We examine the overall impact of the providers’ work with detainees and the implications of their presence. The strongest evidence supports that the small mitigation of harms offered by these providers does not outweigh the harms of supporting a system designed to perpetuate human suffering. For mental health professionals considering working in offshore detention, we offer specific topics to scrutinise and weigh prior to employment. Because optimising detainee’s mental health is beyond the capacity of individual providers, we call for the organisations standardising and supporting mental health professionals to oppose employment of their associates in offshore detention. Lessons from this case study are generalisable to other jurisdictions to help inform organisations that licence and support mental health providers and individual providers considering work in similar settings.

show abstract

Section: Australian Detention Centresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Dirty work: well-intentioned mental health workers cannot ameliorate harms in offshore detention

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In two recent articles that used Australian Government data related to health in immigration detention a number of stark results were found. Essex (2022a) used the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) [1] data from these reports. The mean overall K10 score onshore was 18.85, while offshore it was 24.37.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Health and health care in Australian immigration detention: a comparison between onshore and offshore data

Kalocsányiová,

Essex

2023

IJMHSC

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose This study aims to compare the impact of Australian onshore and offshore immigration detention centres (IDCs) on detainees’ health and health-care events. Design/methodology/approach It uses data extracted from the Australian Government’s quarterly health reports from 2014 to 2017. These reports contain a range of data about the health and well-being of detainees, including complaints/presenting symptoms and number of appointments and hospitalisations. To compare onshore and offshore data sets, the authors calculated the rate of health events per quarter against the estimated quarterly onshore and offshore detention population. They ran a series of two-proportion z-tests for each matched quarter to calculate median z- and p-values for all quarters. These were used as an indicator as to whether the observed differences between onshore and offshore events were statistically significant. Findings The results suggest that adults detained onshore and offshore have substantial health needs, however, almost all rates were far higher in offshore detention, with people more likely to raise a health-related complaint, access health services and be prescribed medications, often at two to three times the rate of those onshore. Originality/value This paper adds to a modest body of literature that explains the health of people detained in Australian IDCs. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this is the first paper to explore health service utilisation and a range of other variables found in the Australian Government’s quarterly health reports. These findings bolster the evidence which suggests that detention, and particularly offshore detention is particularly harmful to health.

show abstract

“…That is, these policies have resulted in the prolonged detention of individuals who are often traumatised and have already faced substantial adversity. Over the last three decades we have seen this manifest in a number of ways, in addition to remarkably high rates of psychological distress [8], despair and a range This year marks 30 years since immigration detention was introduced by the Australian government. Originally introduced as an "interim measure" to address the "pressing requirements of the current situation" [1], these policies have been maintained and expanded.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Between Resistance and Complicity, the Australian Healthcare Community and 30 Years of Immigration Detention

Essex

Kalocsányiová

2022

J Immigrant Minority Health

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This year marks 30 years since Australia introduced its policy of mandatory, indefinite immigration detention. We provide an overview of these policies with a focus on the involvement of healthcare workers, both within centres and externally, protesting these policies. We discuss several lessons that can be learnt from Australia?s approach, namely that traditional approaches to health and healthcare have done little to address the suffering of those who are detained. We call for the healthcare community to consider their role in activism and in calling for the abolition of detention. These lessons sadly have increasing global relevance with several countries now seeking to emulate Australia?s cruelty.

show abstract

Psychological Distress in Australian Onshore and Offshore Immigration Detention Centres from 2014–2018

Cited by 9 publications

References 27 publications

Dirty work: well-intentioned mental health workers cannot ameliorate harms in offshore detention

Dirty work: well-intentioned mental health workers cannot ameliorate harms in offshore detention

Health and health care in Australian immigration detention: a comparison between onshore and offshore data

Between Resistance and Complicity, the Australian Healthcare Community and 30 Years of Immigration Detention

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About