Financial concerns and symptom distress among psychiatric outpatients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose While epidemiological studies have linked economic hardship and financial difficulties with psychological distress and suicide, investigation of financial concerns among users of public mental health services has been limited. Moreover, empirical data regarding a relationship between financial difficulties and mental health symptoms are lacking. The purpose of this paper is to examine the prevalence of financial difficulties among patients attending community mental health clinics, and to examine the relationship between such difficulties and psychological distress and suicidality. Design/methodology/approach Participants attending three community mental health clinics in British Columbia, Canada provided demographic information, including annual income, and completed brief measures of personal financial management, psychological distress and suicidal behavior. Findings Although more than half of participants reported good-to-excellent ability to pay their bills on time, nearly half indicated poor long-range saving and financial planning. Lower annual income was directly related to suicidality. Financial management difficulties were associated with psychological distress, and were significantly related to suicidality after controlling for the effects of income and psychological distress. Originality/value The findings highlight the need for attention to distress and suicidality as potential sequelae of financial management difficulties, and carry implications for further research, clinical intervention and social policy. The findings confirm the need to address financial needs and money management abilities among users of public mental health services.
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 | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".