MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2469188542 · doi:10.1097/jom.0000000000000472

Barriers to Mental Health Service Use Among Workers With Depression and Work Productivity

2015· article· en· W2469188542 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Carolyn S. Dewa, Jeffrey S. Hoch

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicWorkplace Health and Well-being
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchLundbeck CanadaH. Lundbeck A/SPublic Health Agency of CanadaCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
KeywordsProductivityMental healthDepression (economics)Service (business)Work (physics)Work productivityEnvironmental healthMental health serviceBusinessPsychologyMedicinePsychiatryMarketingEconomicsEngineeringEconomic growth

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: This article estimates the decrease in workplace productivity losses associated with removal of three types of barriers to mental health service use among workers with depression. METHODS: A model of productivity losses based on the results of a population-based survey of Canadian workers was used to estimate the impact of three types of barriers to mental health service use among workers with depression. RESULTS: Removing the service need recognition barrier is associated with a 33% decrease in work productivity losses. There is a 49% decrease when all three barriers are removed. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest recognizing the need for treatment is only one barrier to service use; attitudinal and structural barriers should also be considered. The greatest decrease in productivity losses is observed with the removal of all three barriers.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.010
Threshold uncertainty score0.372

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.037
GPT teacher head0.347
Teacher spread0.310 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations43
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Occupational and Environmental MedicineSame topicWorkplace Health and Well-beingFrench-language works237,207