Language Barriers and Access to Psychiatric Care: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to synthesize the available evidence regarding the impact of patients' language proficiency on access to psychiatric care. METHODS: A systematic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Medline, and PsycINFO was performed to identify studies published between January 1950 and July 2014 that examined the impact of language proficiency on access to and utilization of psychiatric services in the general population or among patients with psychiatric disorders. The keywords were psychiatry, language, utilization, access, and mental health care. Only articles in English were included. Cross-referencing of the identified articles was also performed. RESULTS: Eighteen articles from four countries were identified, including 13 from the United States, two from Australia, two from Canada, and one from the Netherlands. These reports were generally consistent in showing a clear association between insufficient language proficiency and underutilization of psychiatric services; 15 studies reported that limited language proficiency was significantly associated with less frequent mental health care visits. Only one article showed an inverse relationship between limited language proficiency and use of mental health services, and two articles reported no association. No published data were found on the effects of linguistic interventions on access to mental health care among people with limited language proficiency. CONCLUSIONS: It is plausible that limited language proficiency is closely associated with underutilization of psychiatric services. Still, the lack of prospective interventional data clearly highlights the need for further investigations of the impact of language barriers on access to psychiatric care.
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 | 0.006 | 0.032 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".