Barriers and facilitators of help seeking among morally injured Canadian Armed Forces Veterans and service members: A qualitative analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
LAY SUMMARY Moral injury (MI) refers to the psycho-spiritual consequences of extremely challenging events that threaten one’s moral beliefs and core values. MI is characterized by intense shame, guilt, anger, loss of trust in oneself and others, and social withdrawal — factors that may impede a person’s willingness to seek help for mental health problems. The authors analyzed interviews with 13 Canadian Armed Forces service members and Veterans struggling with MI. They identified themes representing four main barriers to help seeking (stigma, denial, no knowledge of problem or MI, negative perceptions of the military health system) and five main facilitators of help seeking (a sense of shared experience, screening, encouragement from others to seek help, purpose as motivation, alternatives to formal mental health care). The themes identified largely overlap with factors shown in previous research to be barriers to help seeking among military samples. The results of this study suggest that additional education on the mental health consequences associated with MI, and enhanced screening for this type of distress, may lead to increased support seeking among service members and Veterans struggling with MI.
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 | 0.006 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.016 | 0.007 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| 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".