Black American psychological help-seeking intention: An integrated literature review with recommendations for clinical practice.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cumulative research has indicated that Black Americans underutilize voluntary mental health services. This review article adopts the theory of planned behavior (TPB; Ajzen, 1991) model as an organizing conceptual framework to demonstrate how a variety of factors contribute to Black Americans' reluctance to seek psychological help. These factors include perceived negative consequences associated with seeking help (i.e., mental illness stigma); social pressure against psychological help-seeking (i.e., endorsement of beliefs, such as "Black people do not get mental illness," "Black people must be strong," and/or "Black people who seek professional help have less faith in God"); and perceived difficulties associated with seeking professional help (e.g., cultural mistrust, microaggressions in therapy). This article then suggests approaches that practitioners can use to encourage mental health service use in this population, such as reducing mental illness stigma through psychoeducation; discussing the influences of race/ethnicity and culture in therapy; and preventing and addressing microaggressions in therapy. Finally, the article discusses directions for future research to further investigate how to better understand and encourage psychological help-seeking intention in the Black community.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.021 | 0.017 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".