Understanding help-seeking among depressed men.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Consistently, study findings show that, compared with women, men tend to seek less help for diverse health problems. Addis and Mahalik (2003) have proposed a conceptual framework that considers the influence of gender socialization and five key social-psychological processes to better understand men's help-seeking behaviors in a variety of contexts. The present qualitative study investigated the correspondence between this framework and the self-reported help-seeking experiences of depressed men. Men with depression were interviewed about their help-seeking experiences, with particular reference to the five social-psychological processes proposed by Addis and Mahalik (2003): (1) normativeness of their depression, (2) centrality of depression to their identity, (3) available opportunities to reciprocate received help, (4) how others react when or if they seek help, and (5) perception of loss of control if help is sought. Findings revealed considerable correspondence between these five social psychological processes and the experiences of men who had sought help for their depression. Three processes (normativeness of depression, the centrality of depression, and the ability to maintain a sense of control) were general, whereby they were represented in all of the men's discourses of their experiences. Two other processes (reciprocity, others' reactions to help-seeking) were typical, in that more than half the men had representative descriptions in self-reports of their actual experiences. These findings suggest that Addis and Mahalik's (2003) proposed framework offers a useful structure for developing a better understanding of help-seeking among depressed men.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".