MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2007467304 · doi:10.3109/09638237.2013.869573

Treatment preferences among men attending outpatient psychiatric services

2014· article· en· W2007467304 on OpenAlexaff
Carlos A. Sierra Hernandez, John L. Oliffe, Anthony S. Joyce, Ingrid Söchting, John S. Ogrodniczuk

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Mental Health · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicGender Roles and Identity Studies
Canadian institutionsRichmond HospitalUniversity of AlbertaUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychiatryMental healthPsychologyMedicineClinical psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 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)0.001
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 score0.295
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.338
Teacher spread0.308 · 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

Citations18
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Mental HealthSame topicGender Roles and Identity StudiesFrench-language works237,207