Masculinity and mental illness in and after men's intimate partner relationships
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male suicide continues to be a significant issue worldwide for which there are a myriad of social risk factors. Amongst these, distressed and/or disrupted (i.e., separation, divorce) intimate partner relationships are known to heighten men's mental illness and suicide risk. The current qualitative study offers novel insights to the connections between masculinity and mental illness in and after men's intimate partner relationships. Drawing from in-depth interviews with 47 Canadian and Australian men, three themes were inductively derived: 1) The trouble inside, 2) Breaking up and breaking down, and 3) Finding help. The ‘trouble inside’ results revealed relationship transitions wherein challenges to couple dynamics flowed from diverse life course events (conflict, illness, bereavement, co-parenting). Partnership transgressions (most often infidelity) also featured to heighten men's mental illness vulnerabilities and threaten the feasibility of the relationship. ‘Breaking up and breaking down’ chronicled participants' anxiety, depression and suicidality in the aftermath of their relationship ending. Herein, substance use and other maladaptive behaviours were used by men to blunt feelings and/or self-medicate mental illness. These strategies were ineffectual for moving on from blaming partners or grieving the loss of support and social connectedness provided by ex-partners. ‘Finding help’ included men's eventual self-help, uptake of informal assistance from friends and family, formal professional care services, and the use of facilitated male peer group resources. Norming the use of these diverse help resources were men's alignments to strength-based asset-building masculine ideals, wherein their help-seeking was bridged to, and reflective of their (albeit latent) commitment to better managing their mental health and future relationships. Highlighting the gendered dimensions of mental illness in men's intimate partner relationships, the current study also thoughtfully considers content and contexts for the delivery of tailored upstream suicide prevention programs focussed on men building better relationships.
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".