Help-seeking behaviours of university students in a Northern Ontario community
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Prevalence rates for mental illness are high for Canadian youth 15-24 years old and for those living in northern and rural populations; however, a concerning portion of youth in need do not access mental health services. Although university student populations have higher prevalence rates than the general population, little is known about how Canadian university students seek help for mental health issues and the barriers they may face. This mixed-methods study examined the help-seeking attitudes, intentions, barriers-to-care, depressive symptomology, and help-seeking experiences of a sample of 61 undergraduate university students in the Northern Ontario community of Sudbury, Ontario. There was a total of 61 participants for this study. All participants completed a questionnaire package and seven of the participants volunteered to engage in an additional semi-structured interview. The overall sample had moderately positive attitudes toward help-seeking. Students who had accessed services were more likely to seek help from professional mental health services, had experienced more barriers-to-care, and had higher BDI-II scores than students who had not accessed services. Students not accessing care were more likely to seek help from their parents. There were no differences in the types of barriers faced between users vs. non-users of mental health services. Using thematic analysis, three primary themes were identified from the interview data: 1) Important factors in mental health care; 2) Experiences with mental health professionals and services; and 3) Barriers to accessing mental health care. The findings may help direct future research and endorse the need to further refine outreach interventions and available mental health services to promote student engagement with treatment at universities across Ontario.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".