Perceived Barriers To Mental Health Service Use Among Individuals With Mental Disorders in the Canadian General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Eliminating barriers to care is important for improving health service use. However, the barriers to mental health care have not been well investigated. OBJECTIVES: This study was designed to provide information about the barriers to mental health service use and to identify clinical factors associated with perceived barriers among individuals with depressive-, anxiety-, and substance use-related disorders in the communities. DESIGN: A cross-sectional analysis using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health and Well-being was instituted. SUBJECTS: Participants with depressive-, anxiety-, and substance use-related disorders in the past 12 months, assessed by the World Mental Health-Composite International Diagnostic Interview, were included (n = 4094). RESULTS: In participants with mental disorders, 19.5% reported barriers to mental health service use. The percentage of perceived barriers due to acceptability was higher than those for barriers due to accessibility and availability. Participants with comorbid mental disorders were more likely to have experienced barriers than those with one disorder in both mental health service users and in the nonusers. Role impairment was a significant factor predicting barriers to care, overall and in the service nonusers, in the groups having anxiety disorders only, having any depressive or anxiety disorders, and having any alcohol or drug dependence. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical characteristics play an important role in perceiving barriers to mental health care. Future efforts should pay particular attention to the needs of those with chronic and severe mental health problems and focus on improving the effectiveness of mental 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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".