The relative impact of barriers to care among military health services personnel: exploring differences using context specific scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Military health care providers often under access both physical and mental health care, yet research has predominantly focused on barriers to mental health care. This study explored a comprehensive set of barriers using hypothetical scenarios to quantify barrier impact on access to both mental and physical health care. METHODS: Canadian military health services personnel (N = 1033) completed one of two electronic surveys (assessing either physical health or other mental health barriers) that captured participant's demographics, health, endorsement of barriers, intent to seek care, and whether the respondent would access care in different health scenarios (pneumonia, back injury, depression and post-traumatic stress disorder). Logistic regression was used to calculate odds of not accessing care (versus accessing care) for each of the four health scenarios. RESULTS: All barrier factors independently predicted increased odds of not accessing care for all four scenarios. When entered into an adjusted model none of the barrier factors significantly predicted accessing care in the physical health scenarios. Staffing and workload resources and Treatment preferences (e.g., self-treat) were significant predictors of accessing care in the mental health scenarios. Weak general intentions to access care was the strongest predictors of not accessing care across all four scenarios. CONCLUSIONS: The impact of barriers on hypothetical care-seeking behaviour differs depending on the context for which one is accessing care, with access to resources and preference to self-treat driving mental health care seeking. Intent appears to be the most impactful predictor of accessing care potentially mediating the effect of other barrier types on care 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 | 0.004 | 0.029 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 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".