Youth Perspectives on Seeking Psychotherapy: A Concurrent Mixed Methods Study.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Psychotherapy is the recommended first line of treatment for depression among youth; however, few youth seek professional support. This study compares barriers and facilitators to seeking psychotherapy among both youth who have and have not seen a psychotherapist. The study further explores reasons youth discontinue psychotherapy. METHODS: A concurrent mixed methods study design was used. Eligible participants completed a survey (N=104) and a subset of participants completed a semi-structured interview (N=60). The survey and interview data were analyzed concurrently using a triangulation design. RESULTS: Surveys were conducted among youth who had experienced psychotherapy (N=53) and youth who had not (N=51). The majority of participants were female. Common reasons for not seeking psychotherapy included wanting to handle their problems on their own (87.6%), thinking their problems would improve on its own (87.6%), and not knowing who to see (74.3%). Several barriers were common across the two groups, including stigma, concerns about the therapeutic relationship, and a preference for self-management. Common facilitators included improving coping skills and addressing functional impairment. There was some overlap between the barriers to seeking psychotherapy and the reasons for discontinuing, although aging out of youth-oriented service also constituted a termination factor. CONCLUSIONS: : As this study highlights the multiple factors that influence youth's psychotherapy-seeking behavior, a widespread, multi-level approach is needed to address barriers and facilitators at the individual level, but also at the community, policy, and organizational levels. Strategies such as increasing service availability and quality are needed to increase service seeking and improve retention.
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 | 0.018 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".