Bank Account Ownership and Access Among In-Patients in Psychiatric Care in Berlin, Germany—A Cross-Sectional Patient Survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Access to a bank account is critical for overall participation in social life and an indicator for social integration. Worldwide about 1.7 billion people remain with no access to banking facilities as a form of financial exclusion which represents 31% of the world's general population. In contrast, in Western countries like Germany, 99% of the general population use bank accounts. METHODS: We conducted an exploratory cross-sectional survey on bank account ownership and bank account access among psychiatric in-patients in a psychiatric hospital in Berlin. Out of 540 participants who were reached for an interview, 486 shared information about bank account ownership and 469 on access. RESULTS: Out of 486 participants 49 (10.1%) did not own a bank account. Among the remaining 420 participants owning a bank account, 36 (8.3%) did not have direct access to their bank account, but only, e.g., their legal guardian. Regression results found psychosis, intellectual disabilities, a longer treatment duration, as well as being of male gender and a more instable housing status to be significantly associated with a missing bank account or a missing access to one's bank account. CONCLUSIONS: The lack of bank account ownership and access among this population of psychiatric patients is concerning. The interrelationship between factors of financial exclusion and mental health should be further explored in longitudinal studies. More attention is needed to support people with severe mental illness to be able to access resources associated with financial inclusion.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".