MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135250530 · doi:10.9778/cmajo.20200177

Explaining the gaps in psychological distress and suicidal behaviours between non-Indigenous and Indigenous adults living off-reserve in Canada: a cross-sectional study

2021· article· en· W3135250530 on OpenAlexaffvenueabout
Mohammad Hajizadeh, Min Hu, Yukiko Asada, Amy Bombay

Bibliographic record

VenueCMAJ Open · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIndigenous Health, Education, and Rights
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsIndigenousSuicidal ideationMental healthPopulationDistressMedicineDemographyPsychological distressCross-sectional studySuicide preventionPoison controlPsychiatryPsychologyGerontologyClinical psychologyEnvironmental healthSociology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Indigenous people are disproportionately affected by mental health issues in Canada. We investigated factors underlying the difference in psychological distress and suicidal behaviours between non-Indigenous and Indigenous populations living off-reserve in Canada. Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study using data from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey — Mental Health. Respondents were aged 18 years and older. We measured the variation in psychological distress (10-item Kessler Psychological Distress Scale scores, ranging from 10 [no distress] to 50 [severe distress]) and the prevalence of lifetime suicidal ideation and suicide plan between the Indigenous and non-Indigenous populations and explained these differences using the Blinder–Oaxaca approach. Results: The overall response rate for the survey was 68.9%, comprising 18 300 respondents (933 Indigenous and 17 367 non-Indigenous adults). We found lower mean psychological distress scores among non-Indigenous people than among Indigenous people (15.1 v. 16.1, p < 0.001) and a lower prevalence of lifetime suicidal ideation (9.2% v. 16.8%, p < 0.001) and plan (2.3% v. 6.8%, p < 0.001). We found that if socioeconomic status among Indigenous people were made to be similar to that of the non-Indigenous population, the differences in mean psychological distress scores and prevalence of lifetime suicidal ideation and suicide plan would have been reduced by 25.7% (women 20.8%, men 36.9%), 10.2% (women 11.2%, men 11.9%) and 5.8% (women 7.8%, men 8.1%), respectively. Interpretation: Socioeconomic factors account for a considerable proportion of the variation in mental health outcomes between non-Indigenous and Indigenous populations in Canada. Improving socioeconomic status among Indigenous people through plans like income equalization may reduce the gap in mental health outcomes between the 2 populations in Canada.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.160

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0050.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.038
GPT teacher head0.373
Teacher spread0.335 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations17
Published2021
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCMAJ OpenSame topicIndigenous Health, Education, and RightsFrench-language works237,207