Older Adults’ Narratives of Seeking Mental Health Treatment: Making Sense of Mental Health Challenges and “Muddling Through” to Care
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Older adults who experience challenges related to mental health are unlikely to seek professional help. The voices of older adults who have navigated through mental health issues and systems of care to arrive at psychological treatment are less well understood. We conducted individual interviews with 15 adults aged 61 to 86 who sought psychological treatment. Interviews were audio-recorded, transcribed, and analyzed using narrative methods. We identified several main storylines that describe the meaning-making and treatment-seeking journeys of older adults: resistance to being labeled with mental health problems (telling stories of resistance, defining mental health issues in mysterious and uncontrollable terms, and experiencing internal role conflict); muddling through the help-seeking process (manifestations of chaos and system-level barriers); and emotional reactions to psychological treatment (hope, fear, and mistrust). Findings add to the literature base in the area of narrative gerontology, and highlight the complex experiences that older adults face when seeking psychological treatment.
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 | 0.007 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".