Perceived need for mental health care in Canada: Results from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Past research and national survey data on Canadians' perceived need for mental health care (MHC) have focused on unmet needs overall, and have not considered specific types of MHC needs or the extent to which needs are met. DATA AND METHODS: Using data from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health, this article describes the prevalence of perceived MHC needs for information, medication, counselling and other services. The degree to which each type of need was met is explored. Associations between risk factors for having MHC needs and the extent to which needs were met are investigated. RESULTS: In 2012, an estimated 17% of the population aged 15 or older reported having had an MHC need in the past 12 months. Two-thirds (67%) reported that their need was met; for another 21%, the need was partially met; and for 12%, the need was unmet. The most commonly reported need was for counselling, which was also the least likely to be met. Distress was identified as a predictor of perceived MHC need status. INTERPRETATION: Many Canadians are estimated to have MHC needs, particularly for counselling. People with elevated levels of distress are significantly more likely to have unmet and partially met MHC needs than to have fully met MHC needs, regardless of the presence of mental or substance disorders.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".