Knowledge of Mental Health Benefits and Preferences for Type of Mental Health Providers Among the General Public
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The study explored knowledge of mental health benefits and preferences for providers among the general public. METHODS: Analysis was based on a telephone survey of 1,358 adults randomly sampled throughout Michigan in 1997-1998. RESULTS: A large proportion of the respondents were uninformed about their mental health benefits. One-quarter of the sample were unsure if their health plan even included mental health services. Forty-three percent of the sample believed that mental health benefits were equal to benefits provided for general medical services. In answer to a survey question that summarized payment restrictions for psychiatric services and counseling under Medicare, nearly a quarter of older respondents indicated that they would not seek care even when needed. In the overall sample, the majority of respondents said they would initially seek care from their primary care physician for a mental health problem, although responses varied by age. Persons over age 65 were significantly more likely to seek assistance from their primary care doctor than were younger persons. CONCLUSIONS: The general public lacks information about important mental health benefits, and this lack of information may represent a barrier in their seeking care when needed. Given the overriding preference for primary care providers to treat mental health problems, particularly among older adults, mental health issues should be given more attention at all levels of primary care education.
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 | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".