Variables Associated With Perceived Unmet Need for Mental Health Care in a Canadian Epidemiologic Catchment Area
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study identified variables associated with perceived partially met and unmet needs for information, medication, and counseling, as well as overall perceived unmet needs, related to mental health among 571 people in a Canadian epidemiologic catchment area. METHODS: Needs were measured with the Perceived Need for Care Questionnaire and a comprehensive set of independent variables based on Andersen's behavioral model. Four models were constructed for the following dependent variables: perceived unmet needs for information, medication, and counseling (multinomial logistic regression) and overall perceived unmet needs (multiple logistic regression). RESULTS: The proportions reporting fully unmet need were as follows: counseling, 30%; information, 18%; and medication, 4%. Variables associated with unmet needs for information, medication, and counseling were quite distinct. Enabling factors (for example, neighborhood perception variables) were strongly associated with perceived unmet need for information. Need factors were more strongly associated with unmet need for medication, predisposing factors with unmet needs for information and medication, and health service use with unmet information and counseling needs. People whose overall needs went unmet tended to be younger, to have an addiction, and to have consulted fewer professionals. CONCLUSIONS: Mental health services should facilitate access to psychologists or other clinicians to better meet counseling and information needs. They should also take neighborhoods into account when assessing needs and provide more information about mental disorders and the treatments and services offered in disadvantaged areas. Finally, services should be further developed for younger people with addiction, who tend to be stigmatized and avoid using health services.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".