Help seeking behaviours in men with depression : implications for primary care practice in northern BC
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Within North America, there is a consistent and discordant relationship between men’s low rates of diagnosed depression and high rates of completed suicide. This discordance has traditionally been explained as due to lower rates of help seeking in men as compared to women, particularly for concerns around depression and emotional distress. However, little information is available that provides primary care clinicians with recommendations to address this important gap in care. Therefore, an integrative literature review has been conducted in order to identify the factors that influence help seeking for men with depression in primary care settings. The results are discussed within the context of northern British Columbian primary care practice. In this study, ten articles were reviewed utilizing Whittemore and Knafl’s approach to the integrative literature review. Both grey literature and academic research were included in the analysis. Results suggest that men’s experience of depression and their behaviours around help seeking are complex, but are largely shaped by socially constructed ideals that dictate and perpetuate hegemonic masculinities. These masculinities situate depression and help seeking as ‘feminine’, and may discourage some men from seeking help for their symptoms. Primary care practitioners working in northern British Columbia are encouraged to be aware of the impact of gender norms on their male patients’ help seeking behaviours. Recommendations for enhancing assessment and treatment of men with depression are discussed, and specific strategies for the primary care setting are presented.
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 | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".