Once bitten, twice shy: Dissatisfaction with previous therapy and its implication for future help-seeking among men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Men can be reluctant to disclose distress and many men have ambivalence toward seeking help for depression, leading to poor uptake of and engagement in psychotherapy. The present study sought to explore whether a previously dissatisfying therapy experience leads to greater doubts about the effectiveness of treatment, in turn impacting on a man's willingness to disclose their distress in future. METHOD: An online survey of 133 Canadian men was conducted to investigate their current depressive symptoms, previous experience of, and belief in, the effectiveness of psychotherapy and likelihood of disclosing distress to their physician. A regression model with mediation was employed to analyze the relationship between these responses. RESULTS: The regression model highlighted a significant negative association between satisfaction with previous therapy and doubt about the effectiveness of therapy (t = -7.299, 99% confidence interval [-.537, -.254], p < .001). There was also a significant indirect effect, such that doubt about the effectiveness of therapy mediated the association between previous satisfaction and willingness to disclose distress to a physician (t = 3.748, 99% confidence interval [.123, .690], p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Providing treatment for depression that men find engaging and satisfying may improve their confidence that psychotherapy can help, make them more likely to reach out for assistance in the future and in turn, benefit their long-term mental health outcomes.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".