A Retrospective Cohort Study Comparing the Use of Provincially Funded Mental Health Services between Female Military Spouses Living in Ontario and the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The spouses of military members experience frequent geographic mobility, absences, risk, and other lifestyle dimensions that may cause a greater need for mental health services and barriers to their use, relative to civilians. This was a retrospective, matched cohort study of female spouses of Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) members posted between 04/01/2008 and 03/31/2013 with follow-up to 03/31/2017. 3,358 military-connected spouses were identified and 13,342 civilians matched 4:1 on age, sex, and region of residence. Psychiatric hospitalizations and emergency department (ED) visits, psychiatrist visits, and mental health-related primary care visits were studied. Almost one third of spouses of CAF members visited a family physician for mental health reasons, while a minority visited an ED, a psychiatrist or were hospitalized. Spouses of CAF members were as likely to see a primary care physician, less likely to visit a psychiatrist, visited all measured outpatient sources of mental health services less frequently than the general population and had a longer interval to their first psychiatrist visit than the general population. Information on how mental health services are accessed in the public health system are critical to understanding pathways of care, and the planning and delivery of mental health services to military-connected families.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".