A descriptive study of the prevalence of psychological distress and mental disorders in the Canadian population: comparison between low-income and non-low-income populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This descriptive study compares rates of high psychological distress and mental disorders between low-income and non-low-income populations in Canada. METHODS: Data were collected through the Canadian Community Health Survey - Mental Health and Well-being (CCHS 1.2), which surveyed 36 984 Canadians aged 15 or over; 17.9% (n = 6620) was classified within the low-income population using the Low Income Measure. The K-10 was used to measure psychological distress and the CIDI for assessing mental disorders. RESULTS: One out of 5 Canadians reported high psychological distress, and 1 out of 10 reported at least one of the five mental disorders surveyed or substance abuse. Women, single, separated or divorced respondents, non-immigrants and Aboriginal Canadians were more likely to report suffering from psychological distress or from mental disorders and substance abuse. Rates of reported psychological distress and of mental disorders and substance abuse were much higher in low-income populations, and these differences were statistically consistent in most of the sociodemographic strata. CONCLUSION: This study helps determine the vulnerable groups in mental health for which prevention and promotion programs could be designed.
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) | 0.000 | 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".