Help-Seeking Behaviours of Individuals with Mood Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study had the following objectives: 1) to estimate the 12-month prevalence of conventional and unconventional mental health service use by individuals with major depressive disorder (MDD) or mania in the past year, and 2) to identify factors associated with the use of conventional mental health services by individuals with MDD or mania in the past year. METHODS: We examined data from the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-Being (CCHS 1.2). Respondents with MDD (n = 1563) or manic episodes (n = 393) in the past 12 months were included in this analysis. RESULTS: An estimated 63.9% of respondents with MDD and 59.0% of those with manic episodes reported having used some type of help in the past 12 months; 52.9% of those with MDD and 49.0% of those with manic episodes used conventional mental health services. Approximately 21% of respondents with either MDD or manic episodes used natural health products specifically for emotional, mental health, and drug or alcohol use problems. Respondents who reported comorbid anxiety disorders and long-term medical conditions were more likely to have used conventional mental health services. CONCLUSIONS: Relative to previous Canadian literature, our analysis suggests that the frequency of conventional mental health service use among persons with MDD has not increased significantly in the past decade. Further, the rate of conventional mental health service use by persons with manic episodes is unexpectedly low. These findings may reflect the lack of national initiatives targeting mood disorders in Canada. They have important implications for planning future education, promotion, and research efforts.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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 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".