Treatment preferences among men attending outpatient psychiatric services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The assumption that men dislike psychotherapy has been espoused by clinicians, health care administrators, and those in the popular media. Whether this assumption holds true among help-seeking men has not been tested. AIMS: Treatment preferences of men attending outpatient psychiatric clinics were investigated to assess their willingness to engage in psychotherapy. METHODS: In three different studies (total N = 407; 170 men), male and female outpatients completed various self-report measures that assessed their treatment preferences, as well as psychiatric symptoms. RESULTS: Across all three studies, men indicated a preference for psychotherapy over medication or no treatment/wait and see; a preference pattern that did not differ significantly from that of women. The only between-sex difference to emerge regarding preferences was in study 2; a greater proportion of men preferred individual therapy over group therapy compared to women. There were no between-sex differences with regard to symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to assumptions that portray men, generally, as unwilling or uninterested to engage in psychotherapy, men that have sought mental health services appear to prefer psychotherapy as their intervention of choice to address their mental health problems.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".