Healthcare engagement among gay and bisexual men with recent suicide ideation or attempts.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Gay and bisexual men experience elevated rates of suicide ideation and attempts, as compared with heterosexual men, but face unique barriers in accessing health services. In this context, the present study sought to describe rates of health care engagement among gay and bisexual men with a recent history of suicide ideation or attempts. An anonymous online survey was conducted with 7,872 Canadian gay and bisexual men in 2014-2015. The sample was restricted to characterize patterns of mental health care engagement among respondents who reported suicide ideation or attempts in the previous 12 months. "Engagement" was defined as having discussed mental health concerns (depression, substance use, or suicide) with a provider in the previous 12 months. Rates and correlates of engagement were estimated. Nineteen percent of men reported suicide ideation or attempts in the previous 12 months, of whom 58% had discussed mental health concerns with a provider. Older age, larger social support networks, and being out to a health care provider about one's sexuality were all positively associated with mental health care engagement. Among those who had not engaged with the health care system, 88% had some contact with a provider in the previous 12 months. One-third of these men accessed care through a provider other than their family doctor. Drawing on lessons learned from the HIV crises, collaborations between gay and bisexual community organizations and decision-makers within the health system are needed to address elevated rates of suicide ideation and attempts affecting sexual minorities. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2018 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".