Overcoming Help-Seeking Barriers and Service Demands on Canadian University Campuses and the Role of Campus Support Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Across North America, the pervasiveness of psychological issues on university campuses is becoming increasingly concerning. As such, university counselling clinics and health centres are currently being taxed and staff and administrators are scrambling to keep up with the growing demands. While this is worrisome, it is somewhat overshadowed by the fact that most students (up to 90%) do not seek help for psychological concerns. Thus, while the majority of students are not getting the help that they need, universities are struggling to keep up with the relatively small number of students that are accessing services. Taken together, this suggests that the current structure of support services is not working. The purpose of the present study was to better understand why Canadian students are not seeking on campus support for psychological issues and further, to generate practical suggestions for how support services can be modified to overcome current help-seeking barriers and service demands on campus. The research questions included: a) What are the barriers identified by staff/administrators and students that prevent Canadian students from seeking help for psychological issues on university campuses?, b) What mechanisms are currently being used by universities to address the help-seeking barriers and service demands on their campuses?, and c) What policy and practice changes are still needed in order to address help-seeking barriers and service demands? A generic qualitative approach (interpretive description; Thorne, 2008) was employed as the methodological framework. A sample comprised of 23 staff and students from three Canadian institutions was recruited. Data was collected via semi-structured interviews and analyzed utilizing the framework offered by Thorne (2008). Various themes outlining barriers to help-seeking and mechanisms to overcome these barriers emerged from the data. Conceptually, the “barriers” were organized into individual, structural, and systemic themes, while the “mechanisms” were organized into structural and systemic themes. Overlap between these areas is discussed. The findings are discussed utilizing related research as a foundation. In addition, practice implications are thoroughly reviewed and future directions are outlined.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".