Author name: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team

 Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 20/11/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Yes. The NDIS can fund therapy delivered at home (or school/community) where supports are reasonable and necessary and help participants reach their goals. If a therapist travels to you, they may claim travel time (from 1 July 2025 therapy travel time is billable at 50% of the hourly price limit) and non‑labour costs (e.g., kilometres, parking) within the Modified Monash Model (MMM) time caps and other rules (NDIA, 2024; NDIA, 2025a). Therapy supports can be delivered in your home and community (NDIA, 2025b). Short answer The NDIS funds therapy when it is evidence‑based and linked to functional goals. Therapy can occur at home, by Telehealth, or in the community. For home visits, the therapy session is claimed from the relevant Capacity Buildingcategory (e.g., Improved Daily Living for psychology/OT/SLP; Improved Relationships for behaviour support) and the provider’s eligible travel is claimed under the provider travel rules (NDIA, 2024; NDIA, 2025b). When is a home visit likely to be approved? Home‑based therapy is more likely to meet the reasonable and necessary criteria when (NDIA, 2025b; NDIS Commission, 2024): Tip: Request letters from your allied‑health professionals that explain why home‑based sessions are required for your goals and outcomes. Where does the funding come from? Provider travel: the current rules for therapy (from 1 July 2025) 1) Travel time is billable at 50% of the therapy price limit.From 1 July 2025, therapy providers may claim half of the relevant hourly price limit for time spent travelling, up to the usual time caps by location (NDIA, 2025a). 2) Time caps (per eligible worker) by location still apply. 3) Non‑labour travel costs are separate and still claimable.With prior agreement, providers may claim non‑labour costs such as kilometres, road tolls and parking. The NDIA considers up to $0.99/km reasonable for a provider/worker‑owned vehicle (NDIA, 2024, p. 20). 4) Travel must be agreed up‑front and shown clearly on invoices.Travel must be explained to the participant, authorised in the service agreement, and claimed using the “Provider Travel” option for time and the relevant non‑labour line for kilometres/tolls (NDIA, 2024, pp. 18–20). 5) Non‑face‑to‑face (NFTF) workMany therapy items allow reasonable non‑face‑to‑face tasks (e.g., liaising with school, report writing) when necessary, agreed in advance, and claimed under the correct item using the “Non‑Face‑to‑Face” flag. General admin (e.g., service bookings, payment claims) is not claimable (NDIA, 2024, pp. 16–17). 6) Price limits and management type Worked examples (illustrative only) A) Psychologist home visit in MMM 1 (metropolitan) B) Behaviour support in MMM 4 (regional) Always check the latest NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits (PAPL) when quoting. Home visit vs Telehealth: which is better? Both are valid. Telehealth can reduce travel costs and is effective for many goals when sessions include live coachingand follow‑up tasks. Home visits are preferred when context matters (e.g., behaviour routines, environmental set‑up, equipment trials) or travel is a barrier. Choose the format that best serves functional outcomes and value for money(NDIA, 2025b). Common pitfalls (and how to avoid them) What to put in your service agreement (copy‑ready) FAQ Does the NDIS pay extra just because therapy is at home?No. The therapy time is claimed the same way as a clinic session. The difference is the provider travel items when a therapist travels to you (NDIA, 2024). Can multiple participants share travel costs?Yes—when a therapist visits several participants in a region, travel time and non‑labour costs can be apportioned by agreement (NDIA, 2024, p. 20). Is school a “home visit”?It’s still a community setting. Therapy can occur at school if it meets goals and the school agrees. Travel rules are the same (NDIA, 2024; NDIA, 2025b). Can self‑managed participants pay above the price limit?Yes, price limits don’t apply to self‑managed participants, but clear written fees—including travel—are essential (NDIA, 2024, p. 11). What’s the quickest way to reduce costs?Blend Telehealth for some sessions, combine visits in the same area/day, and use goal‑focused coaching of carers to consolidate gains (NDIA, 2025b). How TherapyNearMe.com.au can help We provide home‑visit therapy (psychology, behaviour support and allied health via partners) across major Australian cities, plus Telehealth Australia‑wide. We’ll quote MMM‑aware travel, include non‑labour costs transparently, and work with your Support Coordinator/Plan Manager.Book online at TherapyNearMe.com.au • Call 1800 NEAR ME (toll‑free). References NDIA (National Disability Insurance Agency) (2024) NDIS Pricing Arrangements and Price Limits 2024–25, Version 1.3 (published 1 Oct 2024). Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/providers/pricing-arrangements (Accessed 12 Nov 2025). NDIA (2025a) ‘Travel claiming rules, gap fees and other costs’. News and updates, 1 July 2025. Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/news/10827-travel-claiming-rules-gap-fees-and-other-costs (Accessed 12 Nov 2025). NDIA (2025b) Therapy supports – Operational guidance (overview page and quick summary). Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/understanding/supports-funded-ndis/therapy-supports and https://www.ndis.gov.au/media/8091/download (Accessed 12 Nov 2025). NDIA (2025c) Transport funding (participants). Available at: https://www.ndis.gov.au/participants/creating-your-plan/plan-budget-and-rules/transport-funding (Accessed 12 Nov 2025). NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (2024) NDIS Practice Standards and Quality Indicators. Available at: https://www.ndiscommission.gov.au/rules-and-standards/ndis-practice-standards (Accessed 12 Nov 2025). NDS – National Disability Services (2025) Provider travel and participant transport: Practical guide. Available at: https://nds.org.au/images/SDP/practical-guides/Provider-travel-and-participant-transport-PG_v2_accessible.docx(Accessed 12 Nov 2025). General information only, not a substitute for individual advice. If you need urgent help, call 000. For 24/7 crisis support contact Lifeline 13 11 14. For personalised guidance, book a Telehealth or home‑visit appointment via TherapyNearMe.com.au.

 Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 19/11/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Consider behaviour support when challenging behaviours are persistent, intense, or unsafe, and when they interferewith learning, friendships, or family life. Evidence‑based care centres on Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) and parent‑mediated programs (e.g., Triple P, PCIT), guided by a functional behaviour assessment (FBA) and a written behaviour support plan (BSP) (Gore et al., 2013; Hanley et al., 2014; Sanders et al., 2014; Thomas & Zimmer‑Gembeck, 2012). In Australia, NDIS participants may access behaviour support practitioners and must follow rules to reduce restrictive practices (NDIS Commission, 2019). If risk is acute (e.g., self‑harm), seek urgent help via 000 or Lifeline 13 11 14. What is behaviour support therapy? Behaviour support is a collaborative, skills‑building approach that aims to understand why behaviours happen and teach safer, more effective alternatives—at home, school and in the community. High‑quality behaviour support: Positive Behaviour Support (PBS) is evidence‑based, person‑centred and values quality of life. It emphasises teaching new skills, adapting environments, and reducing reliance on restrictive practices(Gore et al., 2013; NICE, 2015). Signs your child may benefit Look for clusters lasting ≥4–6 weeks and causing impairment: Safety risks• self‑injury (biting, head‑banging, skin picking)• physical aggression, property damage, elopement/bolting Interference with daily life• frequent, intense meltdowns beyond developmental expectations• school refusal, repeated suspensions, classroom disruption• severe rigidity around routines/transitions; sensory distress• toileting regression (after medical causes ruled out) Caregiver/teacher strain• adults feel “on edge” or unable to leave the child unattended• siblings’ routines are repeatedly derailed Developmental context• co‑occurring autism, ADHD, intellectual disability or language/learning difficulties• major stressors (bullying, sleep problems, pain, trauma) (NICE, 2015; NICE, 2018; NICE, 2018a; Hiscock et al., 2007; Pelham & Fabiano, 2008). What does the assessment involve? What good behaviour support looks like Prevention & environment• predictable routines; clear visual schedules; transition warnings• adapt tasks to the child’s current skills; choice‑making; sensory supports Teach replacement skills• Functional Communication Training (FCT): teach a simple, fast way to request a break/help/item (Carr & Durand, 1985).• emotion‑regulation and tolerance skills; flexible thinking; social skills practice• self‑help skills that compete with the problem behaviour (e.g., toileting routines) Reinforce the positives• catch desired behaviours quickly and often; use specific praise and meaningful rewards• planned ignoring/response cost only within an overall positive plan Plan for safety• de‑escalation scripts, calm‑down zones, and clear roles during crises• track and work to reduce any restrictive practices in line with regulation (NDIS Commission, 2019; NICE, 2015) Monitor & adapt• weekly review of frequency/severity; graph small wins; adjust supports (Hanley et al., 2014). What treatments have the strongest evidence? Parent‑mediated programs• Triple P – Positive Parenting Program (Australia): meta‑analyses show improvements in child behaviour and parenting confidence (Sanders et al., 2014; Kaminski et al., 2008).• Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT): robust effects for disruptive behaviours in young children (Thomas & Zimmer‑Gembeck, 2012).• Behavioural interventions for ADHD: classroom/parent strategies + medication when indicated (Pelham & Fabiano, 2008; NICE, 2018a). Function‑based interventions• FCT and differential reinforcement reduce severe challenging behaviour when matched to function (Carr & Durand, 1985; Hanley et al., 2014). School‑wide/PBS frameworks• Positive behavioural interventions and supports are associated with better climate and fewer office referrals (Bradshaw et al., 2010). Autism‑focused supports• Parent‑mediated social‑communication interventions show durable gains; combine with function‑based strategies for behaviour (Green et al., 2010; Pickles et al., 2016). Sleep as a lever• Brief behavioural sleep interventions improve child behaviour and caregiver mood (Hiscock et al., 2007). Telehealth vs in‑person For many families, Telehealth behaviour support works well when sessions are structured and include live coachingin the child’s natural setting (Comer & Myers, 2016; Comer et al., 2017). In‑person visits can be added for school observations or complex risk. Australia‑specific: NDIS and legal duties A quick decision guide (parents & carers) Green light (watch & coach): behaviours are developmentally normal, brief, and improving with simple routines and sleep fixes.Amber (book assessment): behaviours occur weekly, cause school/home conflict, or you’re walking on eggshells.Red (seek urgent help): self‑injury, serious aggression, unsafe elopement, or rapid regression. Use crisis plans; call 000 in emergencies. What you can start this week (while waiting) Choosing a behaviour support provider (checklist) How TherapyNearMe.com.au can help Start here: Book online at TherapyNearMe.com.au • Call 1800 NEAR ME • Medicare/NDIS/private. References American Psychiatric Association (APA) (2022) Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM‑5‑TR).5th ed., text rev. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing. Bradshaw, C.P., Mitchell, M.M. & Leaf, P.J. (2010) ‘Examining the effects of School‑Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS) on student outcomes’, Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 12(3), pp. 133–148. Carr, E.G. & Durand, V.M. (1985) ‘Reducing behavior problems through functional communication training’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 18(2), pp. 111–126. Comer, J.S. & Myers, K. (2016) ‘Telehealth: Current state of the evidence with children and adolescents’, Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, 26(3), pp. 204–211. Comer, J.S., Furr, J.M., Miguel, E.M., Cooper‑Vince, C.E., Carpenter, A.L., Elkins, R.M. et al. (2017) ‘Remotely delivering real‑time parent‑child interaction therapy: A randomized trial’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(9), pp. 909–917. Gore, N.J., McGill, P., Toogood, S., Allen, D., Hughes, J.C., Baker, P. et al. (2013) ‘Definition and scope for Positive Behavioural Support’, International Journal of Positive Behavioural Support, 3(2), pp. 14–23. Green, J., Charman, T., McConachie, H., Aldred, C., Slonims, V., Howlin, P. et al. (2010) ‘Parent‑mediated communication‑focused treatment in children with autism (PACT): a randomised controlled trial’, The Lancet, 375(9732), pp. 2152–2160. Hanley, G.P., Jin, C.S., Vanselow, N.R. & Hanratty, L.A. (2014) ‘Producing meaningful improvements in problem behavior of children with autism via synthesized reinforcement contingencies’, Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 47(1), pp. 16–36. Hiscock, H., Bayer, J.K., Hampton, A., Ukoumunne, O.C., Wake, M. (2007) ‘Preventing early infant sleep problems and postnatal depression: a randomised trial’, BMJ, 334, 974. Kaminski, J.W., Valle, L.A., Filene, J.H. & Boyle, C.L. (2008) ‘A meta‑analytic review of components associated with parent training program effectiveness’, Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36(4), pp. 567–589. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2015) Challenging behaviour and learning disabilities: prevention and interventions for people with learning disabilities whose behaviour challenges (NG11). London: NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2018) Autism spectrum disorder in under 19s: support and management (CG170 updated). London: NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) (2018a) Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: diagnosis and management (NG87). London: NICE. NDIS Quality and Safeguards Commission (2019) Positive Behaviour Support Capability Framework. Penrith: NDIS Commission. Pelham, W.E. & Fabiano, G.A. (2008) ‘Evidence‑based psychosocial treatments for attention‑deficit/hyperactivity disorder’, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 37(1), pp. 184–214. Pickles, A., Le Couteur, A., Leadbitter, K., Salomone, E., Cole‑Fletcher, R., Tobin, H. et al. (2016) ‘Parent‑mediated social communication therapy for

 Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 18/11/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Music preferences do relate to personality, values and current mood—but effects are small‑to‑moderate, and context matters. Classic studies show repeatable links between the Big Five and broad preference clusters (e.g., openness with jazz/classical/“sophisticated”; extraversion with upbeat/dance/pop) (Rentfrow & Gosling, 2003; Rentfrow et al., 2011). Other work connects preferences with empathy/systemising styles and emotional traits (Greenberg et al., 2015; 2016). Music is also a powerful mood‑regulation tool—supportive when used intentionally, but unhelpful when it locks in rumination or late‑night arousal (Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007; Garrido & Schubert, 2013). Your playlists are best read as signals, not labels—and you can use them to support sleep, focus, social connection and recovery. How researchers study music taste Scientists map preferences using two steps: Important: Associations explain a small slice of who you are; they are not diagnoses. Many people like across categories. What your preferences can reflect (on average) Big Five personality patterns (small‑to‑moderate effects) Cognitive‑emotional styles Age, culture and identity What your playlists don’t prove They don’t fix your personality in place. Effects are probabilistic and contextual. Heavy metal fans, for example, are often stereotyped as “angry”, yet controlled studies show extreme‑music listening can help process anger without heightening hostility (Sharman & Dingle, 2015). Liking melancholic music does not mean you’re depressed; it can be used to process sadness or induce pleasant melancholy (Taruffi & Koelsch, 2014). Music as a mental‑health tool: what works 1) Regulate mood strategically Adolescents report nine common strategies (e.g., diversion, discharge, mental work, solace). Using music flexiblypredicts better mood; using it to ruminate predicts worse mood (Saarikallio & Erkkilä, 2007; Garrido & Schubert, 2013). 2) Protect sleep Late‑night high‑arousal music and headphones can delay sleep. Switch to low‑arousal, slow‑tempo tracks 60–90 minutes before bed; keep devices out of the bedroom (Scott & Woods, 2019). 3) Use playlists by function Create task‑based lists: focus (low‑lyric, moderate tempo), stress downshift (slow, predictable), activation (upbeat, rhythmic). HRV‑friendly breathing to music around 6 breaths/min can aid calm (Lehrer et al., 2020). 4) Leverage social connection Choir/group singing and shared music‑making boost belonging and positive affect (Fancourt & Perkins, 2018). Even shared listening can bond teams and families. 5) Mind the algorithm Recommendation feeds can narrow exposure. Periodically seed novelty—different eras/regions—to broaden inputs and avoid “echo playlists”. Diversity supports creativity (Hong & Page, 2004). FAQs Can a psychologist read my personality from my Spotify Wrapped?They can make loose guesses about traits like openness or extraversion, but there’s large error and context noise (Nave et al., 2018). Treat music data as a conversation starter, not a verdict. Is sad music bad for me?Not necessarily. For many, sad music is pleasant and meaning‑making; problems arise when it drives brooding or isolates you (Taruffi & Koelsch, 2014; Garrido & Schubert, 2013). Do genres matter or acoustic features?Both. Newer studies link acoustic features (tempo, timbre, mode) and perceived emotions to traits across genres (Greenberg et al., 2016; Cowen et al., 2020). Australian pathways to help If music use is tied to sleep problems, anxiety, low mood, or identity stress, a registered psychologist can help you build healthy regulation habits. TherapyNearMe.com.au offers Telehealth psychology and NDIS behaviour support across Australia. In an emergency call 000. For 24/7 support, call Lifeline 13 11 14. References Bonneville‑Roussy, A., Rentfrow, P.J., Xu, M.K. & Potter, J. (2013) ‘Music through the ages: Trends in musical engagement and preferences from adolescence through middle adulthood’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(4), pp. 703–717. Chamorro‑Premuzic, T. & Furnham, A. (2007) ‘Personality and music: Can traits explain how people use music in everyday life?’, British Journal of Psychology, 98(2), pp. 175–185. Cowen, A.S., Fang, X., Sauter, D., & Keltner, D. (2020) ‘What music makes us feel: At least 13 dimensions organize subjective experiences associated with music across different cultures’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 117(4), pp. 1924–1934. Fancourt, D. & Perkins, R. (2018) ‘The effects of singing on health and well‑being: A systematic review’, Perspectives in Public Health, 138(1), pp. 62–69. Garrido, S. & Schubert, E. (2013) ‘Benefits of listening to sad music: Self‑report evidence of everyday benefits’, Psychology of Music, 41(4), pp. 449–465. Greenberg, D.M., Baron‑Cohen, S., Stillwell, D.J., Kosinski, M., & Rentfrow, P.J. (2015) ‘Musical preferences are linked to cognitive styles’, PLoS ONE, 10(3), e0131151. Greenberg, D.M., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D., Monteiro, B.L., Levitin, D.J. & Rentfrow, P.J. (2016) ‘The song is you: Preferences for musical attributes reflect personality’, Social Psychological and Personality Science, 7(6), pp. 597–605. Hong, L. & Page, S.E. (2004) ‘Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high‑ability problem solvers’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), pp. 16385–16389. Lehrer, P., Kaur, K., Sharma, A., Shah, K., Huseby, R., Bhavsar, J. & Zhang, Y. (2020) ‘Heart‑rate‑variability biofeedback improves emotional and physical health: A systematic review and meta‑analysis’, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 45, pp. 109–129. Mas‑Herrero, E., Zatorre, R.J., Rodríguez‑Fornells, A. & Marco‑Pallarés, J. (2014) ‘Dissociation between musical and monetary reward responses in specific musical anhedonia’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(28), pp. E4802–E4811. Mehr, S.A., Singh, M., Knox, D., Ketter, D.M., Pickens‑Jones, D., Atwood, S. et al. (2019) ‘Universality and diversity in human song’, Science, 366(6468), eaax0868. Nave, G., Minxha, J., Greenberg, D.M., Kosinski, M., Stillwell, D. & Rentfrow, P.J. (2018) ‘Musical preferences predict personality: Evidence from active listening and Facebook Likes’, Psychological Science, 29(7), pp. 1145–1158. North, A.C. & Hargreaves, D.J. (1999) ‘Music and adolescent identity’, Social Development, 8(3), pp. 272–289. Rentfrow, P.J. & Gosling, S.D. (2003) ‘The do re mi’s of everyday life: The structure and personality correlates of music preferences’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6), pp. 1236–1256. Rentfrow, P.J., Goldberg, L.R., & Levitin, D.J. (2011) ‘The structure of musical preferences: A five‑factor model’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), pp. 1139–1157. Saarikallio, S. & Erkkilä, J. (2007) ‘The role of music in adolescents’ mood regulation’, Psychology of Music, 35(1), pp. 88–109. Salimpoor, V.N., Benovoy, M., Larcher, K., Dagher, A. & Zatorre, R.J. (2011) ‘Anatomically distinct dopamine release during anticipation and experience of peak emotion to music’, Nature Neuroscience, 14, pp. 257–262. Scott, H. & Woods, H.C. (2019) ‘Understanding links between social media use, sleep and mental health’, Current Sleep Medicine Reports, 5, pp. 141–149. [Sleep‑timing hygiene applied to music use.] Sharman, L. & Dingle, G.A. (2015) ‘Extreme metal music and anger processing’, Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 9, 272. Taruffi, L. & Koelsch, S. (2014) ‘The paradox of music‑evoked sadness: An online survey’, PLoS ONE, 9(10), e110490. General information only. For personalised advice, consider a Telehealth session with a registered psychologist via TherapyNearMe.com.au. If you need urgent help, call 000 or Lifeline

 Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 17/11/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Great networkers are not the loudest people in the room—they are the most useful, curious, and reliable. Skills that matter most are: showing warmth + competence (first impressions), asking more questions, active listening, thoughtful follow‑ups, and cultivating a diverse mix of strong and weak ties (Ambady & Rosenthal, 1993; Huang et al., 2017; Itzchakov, Kluger & Castro, 2017; Granovetter, 1973; Burt, 2004). If networking feels “icky,” reframing it as helping others and learning removes the moral discomfort and increases effectiveness (Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2014). Treat it like health: small, consistent habits beat rare heroic bursts (Lally, van Jaarsveld, Potts & Wardle, 2010). Why networking works (and why it sometimes feels awful) Networks drive opportunity. Weak ties and “brokers” who bridge groups hear about new ideas and roles sooner (Granovetter, 1973; Burt, 2004). Diverse teams and networks also improve problem‑solving (Hong & Page, 2004). Your body reads rooms as threat. Social evaluation can trigger anxiety and safety behaviours (avoidance, over‑talking). Reappraising arousal as fuel improves performance (Jamieson, Mendes, Blackstock & Schmader, 2010) and self‑affirmation reduces threat responses (Cohen & Sherman, 2014). “Instrumental networking” can feel dirty. Studies show people feel morally impure when networking for self‑gain, which reduces effort; reframing it as contributing to others or learning dissolves the effect (Gino, Ayal & Ariely, 2014). Relationships protect wellbeing. Strong social ties buffer stress and predict longevity (Cohen & Wills, 1985; Holt‑Lunstad, Smith & Layton, 2010). That applies to professional ties too. The first five minutes: make a trustworthy impression Ask better questions; listen like a pro Build the right mix of ties Before / during / after: a psychologist’s playbook Before During After Anxiety‑friendly tactics (if networking terrifies you) Digital networking that doesn’t feel spammy A simple weekly cadence (compounds over time) FAQ Isn’t networking just for extroverts?No. Listening, thoughtful questions and reliable follow‑up are introvert‑friendly strengths (Huang et al., 2017; Itzchakov et al., 2017). How big should my network be?Breadth matters less than diversity and trust. Aim for a portfolio of strong and weak ties (Granovetter, 1973; Burt, 2004). What if I hate small talk?Use “high‑altitude” questions (what they’re curious about, what they’re building next). Then ask one follow‑up (Huang et al., 2017). Australian pathways to support If networking anxiety or perfectionism is blocking your career, evidence‑based CBT and skills coaching can help. TherapyNearMe.com.au offers Telehealth psychology nationwide (Medicare/NDIS/private). In a crisis call 000 or Lifeline 13 11 14. References Ambady, N. & Rosenthal, R. (1993) ‘Half a minute: Predicting teacher evaluations from thin slices of nonverbal behavior and physical attractiveness’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(3), pp. 431–441. Burt, R.S. (2004) ‘Structural holes and good ideas’, American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), pp. 349–399. Cepeda, N.J., Pashler, H., Vul, E., Wixted, J.T. & Rohrer, D. (2006) ‘Distributed practice in verbal recall tasks: A review and quantitative synthesis’, Psychological Bulletin, 132(3), pp. 354–380. Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R. & Kallgren, C.A. (1990) ‘A focus theory of normative conduct’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), pp. 1015–1026. Cohen, G.L. & Sherman, D.K. (2014) ‘The psychology of change: Self‑affirmation and social psychological intervention’, Annual Review of Psychology, 65, pp. 333–371. Cohen, S. & Wills, T.A. (1985) ‘Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis’, Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), pp. 310–357. Collins, N.L. & Miller, L.C. (1994) ‘Self‑disclosure and liking: A meta‑analytic review’, Psychological Bulletin, 116(3), pp. 457–475. Elliot, A.J. & Church, M.A. (1997) ‘A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), pp. 218–232. Gino, F., Ayal, S. & Ariely, D. (2014) ‘Self‑serving altruism: The lure of unethical actions that benefit others’, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 93, pp. 285–292. [Includes discussion of moral discomfort in instrumental networking.] Gollwitzer, P.M. (1999) ‘Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans’, American Psychologist, 54(7), pp. 493–503. Granovetter, M.S. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp. 1360–1380. Grant, A.M. & Gino, F. (2010) ‘A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(6), pp. 946–955. Hong, L. & Page, S.E. (2004) ‘Groups of diverse problem solvers can outperform groups of high‑ability problem solvers’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 101(46), pp. 16385–16389. Huang, K., Yeomans, M., Brooks, A.W., Minson, J. & Gino, F. (2017) ‘It doesn’t hurt to ask: Question‑asking increases liking’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 113(3), pp. 430–452. Itzchakov, G., Kluger, A.N. & Castro, D.R. (2017) ‘I am aware of my feelings but can’t express them: The effects of high quality listening on speakers’ clarity and job attitudes’, European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 26(6), pp. 1–13. Jamieson, J.P., Mendes, W.B., Blackstock, E. & Schmader, T. (2010) ‘Turning the knots in your stomach into bows: Reappraising arousal improves performance’, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(1), pp. 208–212. Lally, P., van Jaarsveld, C.H.M., Potts, H.W.W. & Wardle, J. (2010) ‘How are habits formed: Modelling habit formation in the real world’, European Journal of Social Psychology, 40(6), pp. 998–1009. Lehrer, P., Kaur, K., Sharma, A., Shah, K., Huseby, R., Bhavsar, J. & Zhang, Y. (2020) ‘Heart‑rate‑variability biofeedback improves emotional and physical health: A systematic review and meta‑analysis’, Applied Psychophysiology and Biofeedback, 45, pp. 109–129. Levin, D.Z., Walter, J. & Murnighan, J.K. (2011) ‘Dormant ties: The value of reconnecting’, Organization Science, 22(4), pp. 923–939. Locke, E.A. & Latham, G.P. (2002) ‘Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation’, American Psychologist, 57(9), pp. 705–717. Neff, K.D. (2003) ‘Self‑compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself’, Self and Identity, 2(2), pp. 85–101. NICE (2013) Social anxiety disorder: recognition, assessment and treatment (CG159). London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Uzzi, B. & Spiro, J. (2005) ‘Collaboration and creativity: The small world problem’, American Journal of Sociology, 111(2), pp. 447–504. Holt‑Lunstad, J., Smith, T.B. & Layton, J.B. (2010) ‘Social relationships and mortality risk: A meta‑analytic review’, PLoS Medicine, 7(7), e1000316. General information only. If networking anxiety is holding you back, consider a Telehealth session with a registered psychologist via TherapyNearMe.com.au (Medicare/NDIS/private). If you need urgent help, call 000 or Lifeline 13 11 14.

 Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 16/11/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Friends do shape us—but not in a simple, deterministic way. Two forces operate together: selection (homophily)—we choose friends with similar traits—and influence (socialisation)—we become more alike over time (McPherson, Smith‑Lovin & Cook, 2001; Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). High‑quality evidence shows peer effects for health behaviours (e.g., smoking cessation), political mobilisation, study effort and some aspects of mood, especially in adolescence (Fowler & Christakis, 2008; Bond et al., 2012; Sacerdote, 2001; Haeffel & Hames, 2014). Effect sizes are usually small‑to‑moderate, stronger for close ties and in dense groups, and they cut both ways—toward better or worse wellbeing (Aral, Muchnik & Sundararajan, 2009; Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011). The upshot: curate your social environment, protect sleep and mood, and use the strategies below to tilt influence in your favour. First principles: why friends seem to “make” us Homophily (selection). We gravitate toward people like us in age, values, interests and risk profiles. That alone produces similarity without any influence (McPherson, Smith‑Lovin & Cook, 2001). Influence (socialisation). We also adapt to peers via social learning, norms, mimicry and shared routines. In many studies, both processes operate simultaneously (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Aral, Muchnik & Sundararajan, 2009). Beware of confounding. Observational network studies can misattribute selection as influence; careful designs (experiments, random roommate assignments, longitudinal network models) address this (Shalizi & Thomas, 2011; Sacerdote, 2001). What the evidence says (by domain) 1) Health behaviours (smoking, drinking, activity) 2) Mood and cognition (co‑rumination, depressive symptoms) 3) Effort, achievement and habits 4) Body weight and diet (a cautionary tale) What makes influence stronger (or weaker)? Practical playbook: use peer effects to protect your mental health FAQs Do adults still copy friends, or is this just a teen issue?Adults are less susceptible on average but still adapt to close peers—especially for routines (sleep, exercise), alcohol use and mood habits (Brechwald & Prinstein, 2011; Aral, Muchnik & Sundararajan, 2009). Can friends change my personality?Core traits are relatively stable, but day‑to‑day behaviours and explanatory styles do shift with context and company. Small, repeated shifts matter for wellbeing (Haeffel & Hames, 2014). Is social media worse than “real life”?It magnifies exposure and speed. Curating feeds and setting night‑time boundaries reduces risk (Kramer, Guillory & Hancock, 2014). Australian pathways to help How TherapyNearMe.com.au can help We can help you design a people‑and‑habits plan that fits your goals—shifting conversations from co‑rumination to action, building healthy norms, and tackling anxiety or depression with structured, evidence‑based therapy. Book online for same‑week Telehealth across Australia. References Aral, S., Muchnik, L. & Sundararajan, A. (2009) ‘Distinguishing influence‑based contagion from homophily‑driven diffusion in dynamic networks’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(51), pp. 21544–21549. Bond, R.M., Fariss, C.J., Jones, J.J., Kramer, A.D.I., Marlow, C., Settle, J.E. & Fowler, J.H. (2012) ‘A 61‑million‑person experiment in social influence and political mobilization’, Nature, 489, pp. 295–298. Brechwald, W.A. & Prinstein, M.J. (2011) ‘Beyond homophily: A decade of advances in understanding peer influence processes’, Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21(1), pp. 166–179. Christakis, N.A. & Fowler, J.H. (2007) ‘The spread of obesity in a large social network over 32 years’, New England Journal of Medicine, 357(4), pp. 370–379. Cialdini, R.B., Reno, R.R. & Kallgren, C.A. (1990) ‘A focus theory of normative conduct: Recycling the concept of norms’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58(6), pp. 1015–1026. Cohen‑Cole, E. & Fletcher, J.M. (2008) ‘Is obesity contagious? Social networks vs. environment’, Journal of Health Economics, 27(5), pp. 1382–1387. Fowler, J.H. & Christakis, N.A. (2008) ‘The collective dynamics of smoking in a large social network’, New England Journal of Medicine, 358(21), pp. 2249–2258. Granovetter, M.S. (1973) ‘The strength of weak ties’, American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), pp. 1360–1380. Hatfield, E., Cacioppo, J.T. & Rapson, R.L. (1993) Emotional contagion. New York: Cambridge University Press. Haeffel, G.J. & Hames, J.L. (2014) ‘Cognitive vulnerability to depression can be contagious’, Clinical Psychological Science, 2(3), pp. 326–332. Kramer, A.D.I., Guillory, J.E. & Hancock, J.T. (2014) ‘Experimental evidence of massive‑scale emotional contagion through social networks’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(24), pp. 8788–8790. McPherson, M., Smith‑Lovin, L. & Cook, J.M. (2001) ‘Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks’, Annual Review of Sociology, 27, pp. 415–444. Mercken, L., Snijders, T.A.B., Steglich, C., Vartiainen, E. & de Vries, H. (2010) ‘Dynamics of adolescent friendship networks and smoking behavior’, Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40(3), pp. 611–628. Neighbors, C., Larimer, M.E. & Lewis, M.A. (2004) ‘Targeting misperceptions of descriptive drinking norms’, Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 65(4), pp. 556–566. Rose, A.J. (2002) ‘Co‑rumination in the friendships of girls and boys’, Child Development, 73(6), pp. 1830–1843. Sacerdote, B. (2001) ‘Peer effects with random assignment: Results for Dartmouth roommates’, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 116(2), pp. 681–704. Shalizi, C.R. & Thomas, A.C. (2011) ‘Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies’, Sociological Methods & Research, 40(2), pp. 211–239. Steinberg, L. & Monahan, K.C. (2007) ‘Age differences in resistance to peer influence’, Developmental Psychology, 43(6), pp. 1531–1543. Stone, L.B., Hankin, B.L. & Gibb, B.E. (2011) ‘Co‑rumination predicts the onset of depressive disorders during adolescence’, Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 40(5), pp. 1–9. Yakusheva, O., Kapinos, K. & Weiss, M. (2014) ‘Peer effects and the freshman 15’, Economics & Human Biology, 13, pp. 139–149. General information only. For personalised guidance, book a Telehealth session with a registered psychologist via TherapyNearMe.com.au. If you are in danger or need urgent help, call 000; for 24/7 support, call Lifeline 13 11 14.

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 15/11/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. New and “unusual” therapies range from well‑supported (e.g., rTMS) to promising but still experimental (e.g., psychedelics‑assisted psychotherapy, stellate ganglion block, floatation‑REST). This guide summarises what they are, the evidence, potential risks, costs and how to choose safely — so you can have a meaningful conversation with your GP or psychologist. Nothing here replaces medical advice. What counts as “unusual” — and why that matters for outcomes When we say unusual, we mean approaches that sit outside standard first‑line care (e.g., CBT, interpersonal therapy, SSRIs/SNRIs) yet have peer‑reviewed evidence for certain conditions. Some are now mainstream in Australia (e.g., repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation, rTMS), while others remain adjunctive, niche or investigational (e.g., transcutaneous vagus‑nerve stimulation, psychedelics‑assisted therapy, floatation‑REST). Evidence quality and availability vary widely (Mitchell et al., 2021; Goodwin et al., 2022; Lam et al., 2016). How to read this guide: For each therapy you’ll see What it is, Evidence snapshot, Who it helps, Risks & access in Australia, and Questions to ask a provider. A quick evidence map (at a glance)  Therapy Typical target symptoms/conditions Evidence snapshot rTMS Treatment‑resistant depression (TRD) Strong, multiple RCTs and meta‑analyses; Medicare‑rebated in Australia since Nov 2021 (Department of Health, 2021; Blumberger et al., 2018). tDCS Depression; some anxiety Mixed; modest effects; protocol matters (Brunoni et al., 2017; Moffa et al., 2020). tVNS (non‑invasive vagus‑nerve stimulation) Depression, anxiety Emerging; small‑to‑moderate effects in early trials (Wang et al., 2022). Bright light therapy / circadian scheduling Seasonal affective disorder; some nonseasonal depression Good for seasonal depression; useful adjunct for circadian issues (Lam et al., 2016; Cochrane, 2019). Ketamine / esketamine (with psychotherapy) TRD, acute suicidality Rapid but transient effects; requires careful screening and integration (Bahji et al., 2021; TGA/Spravato PI). Psychedelics‑assisted psychotherapy (MDMA, psilocybin) PTSD (MDMA); TRD (psilocybin) Phase‑2/3 RCTs promising; from 1 July 2023 psychiatrists authorised by the TGA may prescribe in tightly controlled settings (TGA, 2023a; Mitchell et al., 2021; Goodwin et al., 2022). Stellate ganglion block (SGB) PTSD hyperarousal Mixed; some improvement in RCTs; still investigational (Rae Olmsted et al., 2019). VR exposure therapy (VRET) Phobias, social anxiety, PTSD Comparable to in‑vivo exposure in meta‑analyses (Carl et al., 2019). Neurofeedback (EEG‑NF) ADHD; anxiety/depression (adjunct) Conflicting evidence; blinded outcomes often null (Cortese et al., 2016; Chiu et al., 2022). HRV biofeedback / slow‑breathing Anxiety, stress, insomnia Consistent small‑to‑moderate benefits; home‑friendly (Goessl et al., 2017; Lehrer et al., 2020). Floatation‑REST Anxiety, stress, pain Early RCTs on safety/feasibility; short‑term anxiolysis (Feinstein et al., 2018; Khalsa et al., 2023). Forest bathing (Shinrin‑yoku) Stress, anxiety, mood Meta‑analyses show reductions in anxiety/depression; heterogeneity high (Kotera et al., 2022). Art & music therapy Depression, trauma, severe mental illness Useful adjuncts; evidence base moderate (Aalbers et al., 2017; Uttley et al., 2015). Animal‑/equine‑assisted therapy PTSD, anxiety, dementia (adjunct) Mixed; many small studies; consider as adjunct (O’Haire, 2017; Sardeli et al., 2024). 1) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) What it is. Non‑invasive magnetic pulses stimulate targeted brain networks implicated in mood regulation. Delivered as daily sessions over 4–6 weeks.Evidence snapshot. Multiple RCTs and meta‑analyses show efficacy in treatment‑resistant depression; theta‑burst protocols can be as effective as standard high‑frequency rTMS with shorter sessions (Blumberger et al., 2018).Australia access & cost. Medicare‑rebated since 1 Nov 2021 under MBS items 14216, 14217, 14219, 14220 when eligibility criteria are met (Department of Health, 2021).Risks. Headache, scalp discomfort; rare seizure risk.Questions to ask. Which protocol? How many sessions? How will response be measured (e.g., PHQ‑9)? 2) Transcranial direct‑current stimulation (tDCS) What it is. Low‑amplitude electrical current modulates cortical excitability via scalp electrodes.Evidence snapshot. Mixed results: meta‑analyses suggest small‑to‑moderate improvements for depression, with best outcomes under supervised, protocol‑adherent courses and when combined with psychotherapy/antidepressants (Brunoni et al., 2017; Moffa et al., 2020).Risks. Skin irritation, transient dizziness.Good fit for. People unable to tolerate medications; as an adjunct. 3) Transcutaneous vagus‑nerve stimulation (tVNS) What it is. Ear‑ or neck‑worn devices stimulate the auricular/cervical vagus branches.Evidence snapshot. Early meta‑analyses indicate promising but heterogeneous effects for depression/anxiety (Wang et al., 2022).Risks. Skin irritation, tingling; avoid with certain cardiac conditions or implanted devices. 4) Bright light therapy & circadian scheduling What it is. Timed exposure to 10,000‑lux light boxes and sleep‑wake regularity to stabilise circadian rhythms.Evidence snapshot. Effective for seasonal affective disorder; augmented benefits seen for some nonseasonal depression (Lam et al., 2016).Risks. Eye strain, headache; screen for bipolar disorder given risk of hypomania.Practical tip. Morning light + consistent sleep/wake + outdoor daylight breaks. 5) Ketamine / esketamine (with psychotherapy) What it is. NMDA‑receptor modulation produces rapid antidepressant effects; delivered as IV ketamine or intranasal esketamine with monitoring.Evidence snapshot. Meta‑analyses support rapid symptom reduction in TRD and acute suicidality, though effects can be transient without maintenance and integration (Bahji et al., 2021).Risks. Dissociation, blood‑pressure spikes, misuse potential. Requires medical screening and structured psychotherapy. 6) Psychedelics‑assisted psychotherapy (MDMA for PTSD; psilocybin for TRD) What it is. Time‑limited psychotherapy augmented by a dosing session with MDMA or psilocybin under strict protocols.Evidence snapshot. Phase‑3 data for MDMA‑assisted therapy in PTSD show clinically meaningful benefits versus therapy plus placebo (Mitchell et al., 2021; 2023). Psilocybin shows dose‑related improvements in TRD in phase‑2/2b trials (Goodwin et al., 2022).Australia access. From 1 July 2023, authorised psychiatrists may prescribe MDMA for PTSD and psilocybin for TRD via the TGA Authorised Prescriber pathway; access remains tightly controlled and costly (TGA, 2023a; 2023b).Caveat. International regulators (e.g., the US FDA advisory committee in 2024) expressed concerns about evidence quality and safety; policy is evolving (FDA PDAC, 2024).Risks. Psychological distress during sessions, cardiovascular effects, drug interactions; careful screening and aftercare are essential. 7) Stellate ganglion block (SGB) What it is. An anaesthetist injects local anaesthetic near the stellate ganglion to dampen sympathetic hyperarousal.Evidence snapshot. One RCT in active‑duty military showed modest improvements in PTSD symptoms over sham; replication and long‑term data are needed (Rae Olmsted et al., 2019).Risks. Invasive procedure risks (bleeding, nerve injury); choose experienced clinicians. 8) Virtual‑reality exposure therapy (VRET) What it is. Therapist‑guided exposure in VR to feared cues (flying, social settings, trauma cues).Evidence snapshot. Meta‑analyses indicate VRET is comparable to in‑vivo exposure for anxiety disorders and can be more acceptable to some clients (Carl et al., 2019).Risks. Cybersickness; ensure therapist is trained in exposure therapy. 9) Neurofeedback (EEG‑NF) What it is. Real‑time EEG feedback to train attention/arousal patterns.Evidence snapshot. Findings are mixed: when outcomes are blinded, effects on core ADHD symptoms can be small or non‑significant; some meta‑analyses report gains in attention measures (Cortese et al., 2016; Chiu et al., 2022).Bottom line. Consider as an adjunct, not a replacement for guideline‑supported care. 10) Heart‑rate‑variability (HRV) biofeedback & slow breathing What it

 Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 13/11/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Breakups are stressful biopsychosocial events. In the short term, expect surges of grief, anxiety, rumination, sleep disruption and physical pain‑like distress as attachment bonds deactivate (Eisenberger, Lieberman & Williams, 2003; Kross et al., 2011). Distress usually eases over weeks to months, faster when you protect sleep, reduce rumination, lean on support, and engage in structured routines. Evidence‑based approaches include CBT/behavioural activation, exercise, self‑compassion practice, and expressive writing (Hofmann et al., 2012; Dimidjian et al., 2006; Schuch et al., 2016; Neff, 2003; Frattaroli, 2006). See the red‑flag section for when to seek urgent help. Why it hurts so much: the brain–body story What’s a typical recovery timeline? No single clock fits everyone, but many people move from acute distress (days–weeks) to reorganisation (weeks–months) and, eventually, growth (months+). Recovery is slower with co‑parenting conflicts, financial stress, isolation, or pre‑existing anxiety/depression (Sbarra, Law & Portley, 2011). Expect non‑linear progress; “bad days” don’t mean you’re back at zero. Common psychological patterns after a breakup 1) Attachment activationProtest (reach‑outs, bargaining), despair, and preoccupation; sometimes checking or “surveillance” on social media that sustains distress (Marshall, Bejanyan, Di Castro & Lee, 2012). 2) RuminationEndless “why” and “what if” loops that feel productive but prolong low mood (Nolen‑Hoeksema, Wisco & Lyubomirsky, 2008). 3) Safety behavioursAvoiding places/people, carrying safety items, or excessive reassurance‑seeking—these reduce short‑term distress but maintain anxiety patterns (Hofmann et al., 2012). 4) Somatic symptomsChest tightness, nausea, sleep fragmentation and early waking are common in the first weeks (Kross et al., 2011). What actually helps: an evidence‑based toolkit A) Stabilise the foundations B) Tame rumination and anxiety (CBT‑informed) C) Build kinder self‑talk Self‑compassion (treating yourself like a good friend) correlates with lower anxiety/depression and faster emotional recovery (Neff, 2003; MacBeth & Gumley, 2012). Try a daily compassion letter to yourself about the breakup. D) Express, but with structure Expressive writing—15–20 minutes on your deepest thoughts/feelings for 3–4 days—can deliver small‑to‑moderate benefits for health and mood (Frattaroli, 2006). If writing raises distress >24–48 hours, pause and seek support. E) Digital hygiene (protect your bandwidth) F) People matter Seek instrumental support (meals, childcare, money admin) and emotional support (friends, family, therapist). Social buffering reduces physiological stress reactivity. Special situations Co‑parentingKeep child contact child‑centred; move logistics to email or parenting apps; avoid processing your feelings with children. Consider parenting support if conflict is high. Shared housing/financesCreate a task list (utilities, bonds, debts). Ask a neutral third‑party to witness agreements. Family & domestic violence (FDV)If the relationship involved coercion, threats or violence, prioritise safety. Contact 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732); in an emergency call 000. Follow specialist guidance; normal breakup advice does not apply (NICE, 2014; 2021). Red flags: act now if you notice… Frequently asked questions How long should “no contact” last?There’s no magic number. Many people benefit from 2–6 weeks to stabilise sleep and routines. If you co‑parent, use low‑contact with clear boundaries instead. Why do I feel worse at night?Cognitive capacity dips and cues for the ex surge (music, photos, socials). Protect sleep; schedule contact with friends in the evening; write a “worry list” then close the notebook (Scott & Woods, 2019). Is it okay to date quickly (“rebound”)?There’s little high‑quality evidence either way; focus on whether dating aligns with your values, not avoidance. If you’re using new partners to escape feelings, pause and revisit skills above. Does therapy help with breakups?Yes—CBT/BA, grief‑informed work, and skills for co‑parenting and boundary‑setting are effective (Hofmann et al., 2012; Dimidjian et al., 2006). How TherapyNearMe.com.au can help Start here: Online referrals via TherapyNearMe.com.au • Medicare/NDIS/private • Same‑week availability. References Baldwin, D.S. et al. (2014) ‘Evidence‑based pharmacological treatment of anxiety disorders, post‑traumatic stress disorder and obsessive‑compulsive disorder: A revision of the 2005 guidelines from the British Association for Psychopharmacology’, Journal of Psychopharmacology, 28(5), pp. 403–439. https://doi.org/10.1177/0269881114525674 Dimidjian, S., Hollon, S.D., Dobson, K.S. et al. (2006) ‘Randomized trial of behavioural activation, cognitive therapy, and antidepressant medication in the acute treatment of adults with major depression’, Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74(4), pp. 658–670. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.4.658 Eisenberger, N.I., Lieberman, M.D. & Williams, K.D. (2003) ‘Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion’, Science, 302(5643), pp. 290–292. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1089134 Frattaroli, J. (2006) ‘Experimental disclosure and its moderators: A meta‑analysis’, Psychological Bulletin, 132(6), pp. 823–865. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.6.823 Gross, J.J. & John, O.P. (2003) ‘Individual differences in two emotion regulation processes: Implications for affect, relationships, and well‑being’, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), pp. 348–362. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.348 Gu, J., Strauss, C., Bond, R. & Cavanagh, K. (2015) ‘How do mindfulness‑based cognitive therapy and mindfulness‑based stress reduction improve mental health and wellbeing? A systematic review and meta‑analysis of mediation studies’, Clinical Psychology Review, 37, pp. 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2015.01.006 Hofmann, S.G., Asnaani, A., Vonk, I.J., Sawyer, A.T. & Fang, A. (2012) ‘The efficacy of cognitive behavioral therapy: A review of meta‑analyses’, Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36(5), pp. 427–440. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9476-1 Kross, E., Berman, M.G., Mischel, W., Smith, E.E. & Wager, T.D. (2011) ‘Social rejection shares somatosensory representations with physical pain’, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 108(15), pp. 6270–6275. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1102693108 MacBeth, A. & Gumley, A. (2012) ‘Exploring compassion: A meta‑analysis of the association between self‑compassion and psychopathology’, Clinical Psychology Review, 32(6), pp. 545–552. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cpr.2012.06.003 Marshall, T.C., Bejanyan, K., Di Castro, G. & Lee, R.A. (2012) ‘Facebook surveillance of former romantic partners: Associations with postbreakup recovery’, Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(10), pp. 521–526. https://doi.org/10.1089/cyber.2012.0125 Neff, K.D. (2003) ‘Self‑compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself’, Self and Identity, 2(2), pp. 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032 Nolen‑Hoeksema, S., Wisco, B.E. & Lyubomirsky, S. (2008) ‘Rethinking rumination’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 3(5), pp. 400–424. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6924.2008.00088.x Sbarra, D.A., Law, R.W. & Portley, R.M. (2011) ‘Divorce and death: A meta‑analysis and research agenda for clinical, social, and health psychology’, Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(5), pp. 454–474. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691611414724 Scott, H. & Woods, H.C. (2019) ‘Understanding links between social media use, sleep and mental health’, Current Sleep Medicine Reports, 5, pp. 141–149. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40675-019-00148-9 NICE (2014; updated 2021) Domestic violence and abuse: multi‑agency working. London: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. General information only. For personalised care, consider booking a Telehealth session with a registered psychologist via TherapyNearMe.com.au. If you are in danger, call 000; for 24/7 support call Lifeline on 13 11 14 or 1800RESPECT (1800 737 732).

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 27/10/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Celebrity culture is no longer limited to movies and red carpets — it is now an always-on psychological environment, shaping how people see themselves, behave socially, and determine what “success” or “attractiveness” should look like. But while some public figures promote emotional wellbeing and authenticity, others are repeatedly identified by psychologists and research groups as damaging to public mental health, especially among young women, teenage boys, and high social media users. 1. The body-obsessed “perfect life” Instagram influencer Examples: Kim Kardashian, Kylie Jenner and other hyper-filtered beauty influencers. 2. The luxury flaunting “billionaire lifestyle” persona Examples: Jay-Z, Floyd Mayweather. 3. The “trauma performance” oversharer celebrity Examples: Trisha Paytas, Demi Lovato (at times), influencers who monetise breakdowns. 4. The polarising shock-value political commentator Examples: Piers Morgan, Destiny. 5. The “hustle 24/7” toxic entrepreneurship icon Examples: Gary Vaynerchuk, Elon Musk’s public persona, Grant Cardone. 6. The extreme beauty & cosmetic surgery promoter Examples: Blac Chyna (pre-surgery reversal era), Bella Hadid aesthetics influence, Love Island cast. 7. The scandal-fuelled reality TV archetype 8. The extreme diet & wellness purity influencer 9. The “alpha dominance” gender-war influencer 10. The chaos-based “unfiltered breakdown” celebrity Conclusion Not all celebrity influence is harmful — but some archetypes consistently show measurable psychological harmacross global research. The most mentally dangerous celebrities are those who: Learning to curate rather than consume culture is now a mental health survival skill. References

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 26/10/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Not all careers impact mental health equally. Some professions carry high levels of sustained psychological stress, decision pressure, emotional labour, and exposure to trauma — all of which drive anxiety risk. Others offer predictable routines, high autonomy, and low emotional burden, making them statistically protective against anxiety and burnout. This extended article explores the highest and lowest anxiety professions in 2025, using data from peer‑reviewed psychology research, labour studies, and global occupational health reports. We break down why certain careers produce more anxiety than others, what personality types are more vulnerable, and how professionals can protect their mental wellbeing. What Determines Anxiety Risk in a Profession? Occupational psychologists identify four major predictors of anxiety in the workplace (Karasek & Theorell, 1990): In contrast, professions with autonomy, stable routine, deep work focus, and low exposure to suffering or conflictshow significantly lower anxiety and burnout rates. Professions with the Highest Anxiety Levels (Research‑based) 1. Emergency and frontline healthcare workers Doctors, paramedics, nurses and mental health clinicians experience constant exposure to crisis, death, trauma, and rapid decision‑making under pressure (Shanafelt et al., 2021). Burnout rates in emergency medicine exceed 60% globally. 2. Teachers and early childhood educators High emotional labour, dysregulated classrooms, and pressure to meet academic/government benchmarks have made teaching one of the fastest‑burning out professions in Australia (Deloitte, 2023). 3. Lawyers and corporate finance professionals Perfectionism culture, long hours, high stakes, and adversarial environments are strongly linked with anxiety, insomnia and substance use (Krakauer et al., 2020). Mental health stigma remains high in law. 4. Customer service and call centre workers Evidence shows unpredictable conflict, emotional abuse from customers, and surveillance-based micromanagement create extreme anxiety over time (Zapf et al., 2003). 5. Gig economy and freelance workers High income instability, no benefits, algorithmic rating systems, and lack of boundaries contribute to chronic stress and emotional exhaustion (Wood et al., 2019). Professions with the Lowest Anxiety Levels 1. Archivists, librarians and research professionals Structured routine, quiet environments and high autonomy and cognitive focus make this one of the lowest burnout and anxiety professions (Bhui et al., 2016). 2. Skilled trades (electricians, carpenters, mechanics) High task clarity, real‑world problem solving and visible outcomes are protective against cognitive rumination, reducing anxiety risk. 3. Data analysts and software engineers (in stable environments) Deep work, remote flexibility and high autonomy significantly lower anxiety — unless placed in toxic startup “crunch” cultures. 4. Park rangers, conservation workers and ecotherapists Regular nature exposure reduces cortisol and anxiety symptoms (Bratman et al., 2019). Seen as one of the most psychologically regenerative career types. 5. University lecturers with tenure High autonomy, long‑term academic security and seasonal work rhythm create statistically lower anxiety levels than most professions (Winefield et al., 2003). Why Personality Fit Matters More Than the Job Title Some people thrive in high‑pressure roles (e.g. emergency doctors), while others experience anxiety rapidly in chaotic or unpredictable workplaces. The biggest predictor of long‑term mental health is whether the role aligns with a person’s: A “low anxiety job” for one person may be mentally corrosive to another. Conclusion Anxiety risk is not random — it is predictably linked to exposure to human suffering, loss of control, high responsibility without support, and emotional conflict. Professions in healthcare, law, frontline education and customer conflict carry the greatest psychological load, while autonomy‑rich, quieter, and nature‑exposed rolesshow the lowest anxiety levels. Choosing a career aligned with both personal nervous system tolerance and environmental preference is one of the strongest long‑term mental health protective decisions a person can make. References

Written by: Therapy Near Me Editorial Team Clinically reviewed by: qualified members of the Therapy Near Me clinical team Last updated: 25/10/2025 This article is intended as general information only and does not replace personalised medical or mental health advice. Learn more about our Editorial Policy. Introduction Generation Alpha — today’s children aged roughly 5 to 15 — are entering what experts now call the most mentally fragile childhood era in modern history. Paediatric psychologists and school wellbeing experts are warning of a rising Gen Alpha mental health crisis, with signs of burnout, anxiety and sensory overwhelm appearing as early as age 8–10. In this deep dive, we explore the root causes of children’s burnout, the role of academic pressure, digital overstimulation and parenting expectations, and what families and schools must urgently change to protect long‑term emotional resilience. Generation Alpha — children born from approximately 2010 onward — are the first to grow up entirely in an era of AI, algorithmic platforms, pandemic disruption, economic uncertainty, and unprecedented academic pressure. They are also now showing early warning signs of burnout, not in high school or university, but as young as age 8–10. Educators, psychologists and paediatric researchers are raising urgent concerns: Are we accelerating childhood development while eliminating childhood itself? This article explores the rising mental health risks facing Gen Alpha, the mechanisms driving this crisis, and what must change to prevent a generation-wide epidemic of emotional exhaustion. 1. Who is Gen Alpha — and why are they different from Gen Z? Gen Alpha are the children of Millennials and late Gen X, born into a world where: Unlike Gen Z — who transitioned from analog childhoods to digital adolescence — Gen Alpha never experienced pre-digital life, making their cognitive, emotional and social development fundamentally different (McCrindle, 2023). 2. The rise of early academic pressure and performance anxiety Australian early education now involves structured academic milestones by age 5–6, compared to age 7–8 just a generation ago (OECD, 2022). While this was introduced to improve global competitiveness, the psychological cost is becoming evident. We have adultified emotional pressure — but without adult emotional capacity. 3. Digital fatigue, attention strain and algorithmic dysregulation Gen Alpha are experiencing digital fatigue younger than any generation in history. Excessive screen exposure — especially interactive and fast-paced content — is linked to: Algorithmic platforms reward stimulation over self-regulation, training the brain for novelty rather than resilience. The effects are neurobiological — not just behavioural. 4. Pandemic-era disruption and emotional maturity delay Gen Alpha experienced COVID-19 not as a social inconvenience — but as a developmental interruption. This maturity gap makes them appear “over-sensitive”, but in reality, they are simply correctly calibrated for a more unstable world. 5. Emotional burnout symptoms appearing in primary school Increasingly, psychologists are documenting burnout-like presentations before age 12, a phenomenon previously limited to adults and university students. Common symptoms include: One therapist described it as: “They’re not acting like children — they’re acting like burnt-out junior executives.” 6. Are parents accidentally amplifying the crisis? Research suggests most parental stress‑responses are well-intentioned but counterproductive. The aim is protection — but the outcome is fragility under normal stress. 7. What must change — urgently For parents For schools For governments Conclusion Generation Alpha are not weaker — they are overstimulated, overmeasured, and under‑restored. We are witnessing the first children in history to experience life as a performance before developing emotional defences. If patterns continue unchanged, we may normalise burnout before high school. But the solution is entirely possible — protect their nervous systems, not just their futures. Prioritise rest, resilience training, play and emotional safety over short‑term performance optics. A generation’s mental health depends on it. References