Older adults’ mental health information preferences: a call for more balanced information to empower older adults’ mental health help-seeking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract A small minority of older adults seek psychological help when they need it. Barriers to mental health service use among older adults include low mental health literacy and reduced opportunities for shared decision-making in health care. There is a gap in the literature examining the mental health information preferences of older adults. The objectives of this study were to describe the information preferences and predictors of preferences among older adults. In total, 229 adults aged 50 years and older in central Canada responded to a questionnaire investigating socio-demographic, psycho-social and health-related characteristics, as well as mental health information preferences. Descriptive analysis quantified participants’ ratings of information preferences and hierarchical linear regression analysis determined predictors of their preferences. Older adults rated all mental health content items as very important. Most participants preferred detailed information (two to six pages) on all treatment options (psychological, pharmacological, combined and self-help). Older adults significantly preferred discussion with a heath-care provider and written information, in comparison to other formats. Older adults also significantly preferred to consult family, friends and heath-care professionals over other sources. Socio-demographic and psycho-social characteristics accounted for some of the variance in predicting older adults’ information preferences. Findings highlight older adults’ desire to be involved in decisions concerning mental health supports. Providing balanced information concerning mental health treatment may increase empowerment in mental health help-seeking.
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 | 0.015 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".