The Impact of Deinstitutionalizing Psychiatric Services on the Accessing of Mental Health Services by People with Higher Levels of Psychological Distress
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even though the policy of deinstitutionalization of mental health services purports to improve access to community-based services, there is a paucity of research that evaluates the impact of this policy on the general community. The research in this study builds on an empirical analysis of 40 years of the process of deinstitutionalization of mental health services in Canada (Sealy & Whitehead, 2004). An experimental design is simulated through the use of a derived construct—earlier vs. later deinstitutionalization—in order to test whether the policy of deinstitutionalization has achieved the goal of improving the accessing of mental health services by people with increased levels of psychological distress, while taking into consideration various social correlates. Data about the accessing of mental health services were obtained in the National Population Health Survey (Statistics Canada, 1996, 2001). Results identify that provinces that implemented deinstitutionalization earlier show improved access of community mental health services and fewer social inequalities of access. Nevertheless, the majority of people who have higher levels of psychological distress have not accessed mental health services.
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 | 0.005 | 0.031 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".