Mental Health Screening and Differences in Access to Care among Prisoners
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Disparities in mental health care exist between regional and demographic groups. While screening is recommended as part of a correctional mental health strategy, little work has been done to explore whether it can narrow regional and demographic disparities in access to care. We compared treatment access rates by sex, race, age, and region in relation to screening results. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective cohort study using administrative data. All 7965 admissions to the prison system were followed for a median of 14 months. RESULTS: Males and non-Indigenous minority racial groups had lower rates of treatment regardless of screening results; they were less likely both to self-report needs and to receive treatment if these needs were reported. Regional differences revealed higher treatment rates in Atlantic Canada and Ontario, as well as higher rates of inmates self-reporting needs on screening who did not receive treatment in the Atlantic, Québec, and Pacific regions. There were minimal differences between inmates of different age groups. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest potential resource gaps and/or differences in the performance of screening to detect mental health needs across demographic and regional groups. Screening did not narrow, and may have widened, differences between groups.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".