Differences between the Canadian military’s Regular and Reserve Forces in perceived need for care, mental health services use and perceived sufficiency of care: a cross-sectional survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The primary objective was to explore differences in perceived need for care (PNC), mental health services use (MHSU) and perceived sufficiency of care (PSC) between Canadian Armed Forces Regular Force (RegF) and Reserve Force (ResF) personnel with an objective need for mental health services. DESIGN: Data came from the 2013 Canadian Armed Forces Mental Health Survey, a cross-sectional survey of serving personnel (n=72 629). Analyses were among those with an Afghanistan deployment and an identified mental disorder (population n=6160; sampled n=868). Logistic regression compared PNC, MHSU and PSC between RegF and ResF. Covariate-adjusted marginal prevalence difference estimates were computed. PRIMARY OUTCOME MEASURE: The primary outcomes were PNC, MHSU and PSC. Each had three service categories, including an aggregate 'any' of the three: (1) information about problems, treatments or services; (2) medication and (3) counselling. RESULTS: ResF had an 10.5% (95% CI -16.7% to -4.4%) lower perceived need for medication services but PNC differences were not significant for other service categories. MHSU tended to be lower for ResF; 9.1% (95%CI -15.5% to -2.6%) lower for medication, 5.4% (95% CI -11.5% to 0.7%) lower, with marginal significance, for counselling and 11.3% (95% CI -17.3% to -5.2%) lower for the 'any' service category. Additionally, ResF tended to have a lower fully met need for care; 13.4% (95% CI -22.1% to -4.6%) lower for information, 15.3% (95% CI -22.9% to -7.6%) lower for counselling and 14.6% (95% CI -22.4% to -6.8%) lower for the 'any' service category. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest MHSU and PSC differences between Canadian RegF and ResF personnel that are not fully accounted for by PNC differences. Deficits in ResF members' perceptions of the sufficiency of information services and counselling services suggest perceived, or experienced, barriers to care beyond any PNC barriers. Additional research assessing barriers to mental healthcare is warranted.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".