MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2015112441 · doi:10.1177/002076400104700305

Ethnic and Gender Differences in Mental Health Utilization: the Case of Muslim Jordanian and Moroccan Jewish Israeli Out-Patient Psychiatric Patients

2001· article· en· W2015112441 on OpenAlexaff
Alean Al‐Krenawi, John R. Graham, Menachim Ophir, Jamil Kandah

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Psychiatry · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsEthnic groupArabicChecklistPsychiatryNationalityMental healthEtiologyMedicineJudaismPsychologyClinical psychologyImmigration

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A sample of 148 (87 Jordanian [61 male, 26 female] and 61 Israeli [26 male, 35 female]) was selected from a psychiatric clinic in Ashdod Israel and Zarka Jordan, using convenience sampling methodology over a 12 month period in late 1997 and early 1998. A revised Hopkins Symptom Checklist: A Self-Report Symptom Inventory (HSCL) was translated into Arabic and Hebrew and distributed to subjects; additional questions explored demographic characteristics, forms of received treatment, patient perceptions of treatment efficacy, patient use of traditional healers, and patient explanation of etiology. Data revealed that there were differences in dimensions between the 2 groups based on nationality and gender. More Jordanians than Israelis expected medications as the main treatment, and unlike Israelis, no Jordanian patients received individual psychotherapy. Israelis expected medications, advice, directions, and instructions from psychiatrists. Both ethnic groups consulted a wide array of traditional healers, although precise types of healers varied according to gender and ethnicity. Israeli subjects gave more diverse explanations of mental health etiologies: physical, family, divorce, economic, unemployment; whereas Jordanians tended to emphasize divine and spiritual sources. Implications for psychiatric practice are discussed.

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 score0.167
Threshold uncertainty score0.432

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
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 head0.078
GPT teacher head0.411
Teacher spread0.333 · 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

Citations33
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207