MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3135937474 · doi:10.1177/00207640211001084

Predicting rejection attitudes toward utilizing formal mental health services in Muslim women in the US: Results from the Muslims’ perceptions and attitudes to mental health study

2021· article· en· W3135937474 on OpenAlexaff
Sara Ali, Danah Elsayed, Saadia Elahi, Belal Zia, Rania Awaad

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Social Psychiatry · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of ManitobaUniversity of Guelph
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthStigma (botany)PerceptionPsychologyMultilevel modelMiddle Eastern Mental Health Issues & SyndromesClinical psychologyHelp-seekingHealth careScale (ratio)PsychiatrySocial psychologyMental illnessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: The underutilization of mental health services is a recognized problem for the growing number of Muslims living in the West. Despite their unique mental health risk factors and the pivotal role they play in determining mental health discourse in their families and in society, Muslim women in particular have not received sufficient study. Aim: To help remedy this research gap, we examined factors that may impact the rejection attitudes of Muslim women toward professional mental health care using the first psychometrically validated scale of its kind; the M-PAMH (Muslims’ Perceptions and Attitudes to Mental Health). Methods: A total of 1,222 Muslim women responded to questions about their cultural and religious beliefs about mental health, stigma associated with mental health, and familiarity with formal mental health services in an anonymous online survey. Results: Hierarchical multiple regression analysis revealed that higher religious and cultural beliefs, higher societal stigma, and lower familiarity with professional mental health services were associated with greater rejection attitudes toward professional mental healthcare. The final model was statistically significant, F (5, 1,216) = 73.778; p < .001, and explained 23% of the variance in rejection attitudes with stigma accounting for the most (12.3%) variance, followed by cultural and religious mental health beliefs (6%), and familiarity with mental health services (2.7%). Conclusions: Findings suggest that although the examined factors contributed significantly to the model, they may not be sufficient in the explanation of Muslim women's rejection attitudes toward mental health services. Future research may explore additional variables, as well as predictive profiles for Muslim women’s perceptions and attitudes of mental health based on a combination of these factors.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
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 score0.013
Threshold uncertainty score0.025

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.412
Teacher spread0.374 · 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

Citations25
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of Social PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207