What gets in the way? Men’s perspectives of barriers to mental health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: This study describes barriers to accessing mental health services among men currently experiencing a mental health concern. Methods: Mental health help-seeking survey data from 778 male respondents who self-reported experiencing a mental health concern were analyzed. Results: Of these men, 65% ( n = 513) wanted treatment and 35% ( n = 265) did not want treatment. The most frequently endorsed barriers to mental health treatment were believing that a lot of people feel sad and down (80%; n = 620), not knowing what to look for in a psychotherapist (counselor; 80%; n = 618) and needing to solve one’s own problems (73%; n = 569). Compared with men who wanted help for their mental health concern, those men who did not want help were significantly more likely to be unsure if psychotherapy (counseling) really works or is effective, not tell their physician if they were feeling down or depressed and prefer to solve their own problems. Conclusions: The high endorsement of both structural (e.g., cost) and attitudinal (e.g., beliefs) barriers by respondents suggests that service delivery must adapt to better respond to dominant masculine ideals while also improving men’s ease of access into a transparent treatment process.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".