MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3199632074 · doi:10.1080/15614263.2021.1979398

Police staff and mental health: barriers and recommendations for improving help-seeking

2021· article· en· W3199632074 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePolice Practice and Research · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicPolicing Practices and Perceptions
Canadian institutionsOntario Shores Centre for Mental Health SciencesMemorial University of Newfoundland
Fundersnot available
KeywordsConfidentialityMental healthStigma (botany)PsychologyHelp-seekingMental illnessNursingPublic healthFocus groupPublic relationsMedicinePsychiatryBusinessPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental disorders are prevalent among public safety personnel (PSP) yet many people working across public safety professions appear reluctant to seek care for mental health-related concerns. Given the prevalence and impact of compromised mental health on these populations, finding ways to increase use of psychological support for police staff and officers is necessary. We conducted an interview and focus groups (n= 9) with police service members (n= 33) to examine the barriers police officers (n= 25) and communicators (n= 8) report facing when seeking treatment, and their suggestions for improving access to treatment. We identified three main barriers: stigma, worries about confidentiality, and occupation-specific experience with people in the community who present in mental distress. Three suggestions emerged from our participants that may improve current mental health support, namely, ensuring confidentiality, easy-to-use electronic resources, and access to occupation-specific content. We discuss the implications of our results with suggestions for policy and practice.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.691
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0040.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.155
GPT teacher head0.523
Teacher spread0.368 · 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