MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1979894011 · doi:10.1080/03630240802134225

Correlates of Mental Health Service Use Among Lesbian, Gay, and Bisexual Mothers and Prospective Mothers

2008· article· en· W1979894011 on OpenAlexaff
Leah S. Steele, Lori E. Ross, Rachel Epstein, Carol Strıke, Corrie Goldfinger

Bibliographic record

VenueWomen & Health · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and Postpartum
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthSt. Michael's Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthLesbianReferralContext (archaeology)MedicinePsychiatryMental health servicePsychologyFamily medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lesbian, gay, and bisexual women undertake parenting in a social context that may be associated with unique risk factors for perinatal depression. This cross-sectional study aimed to describe the mental health services used by women in the perinatal period and to identify potential correlates of mental health service use. Sixty-four women who were currently trying to conceive, pregnant, or the parent of a child less than one year of age were included. One-third of women reported some mental health service use within the past year; 30.6% of women reported a perceived unmet need for mental health services in the past year, with 40% of these women citing financial barriers as the reason for their unmet need. Women who were trying to get pregnant or who were less "out" were most likely to have had recent mental health service use. Women who had conceived by having sex with a man or who reported more than three episodes of discrimination were most likely to report unmet needs for mental health services. Providers may benefit from additional knowledge about the LBG social context that is relevant to perinatal health, and from identifying a strong referral network of skilled and affordable counsellors.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.061
Threshold uncertainty score0.735

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.036
GPT teacher head0.310
Teacher spread0.273 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueWomen & HealthSame topicMaternal Mental Health During Pregnancy and PostpartumFrench-language works237,207