Perceived Need and Receipt of Outpatient Mental Health Services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The finance and provision of care have been suggested as variables that affect the utilization of mental health services. This study compared perceived need and receipt of outpatient mental health services in a staff-model health maintenance organization (HMO) and in three HMOs with preferred provider organization (PPO) arrangements. A national random phone survey (n = 1,394) of perceived need for and receipt of mental health assistance was conducted in Israel in 1995. Health care is provided by four HMOs that differ in mental health benefits, utilization management (i.e., prior authorization and referral requirements), and availability of mental health services (i.e., pool of providers and geographic dispersal). About one-quarter of the respondents had perceived a need for help at some time in their life. Significantly fewer respondents from the HMO with a small pool of providers got help (20%) than respondents from the other HMOs, which had almost identical rates of obtaining care (40.3%, 37.3% and 40.3%). Providing generous outpatient mental health care benefits does not appear to increase the proportion of persons in need who get help. However, severely limiting the availability of services does reduce the proportion of persons getting care. Implications for regulating insurers are discussed.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".