Canadian perspectives of digital mental health supports: Findings from a national survey conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on population mental health has highlighted the potential for digital mental health to support the needs of those requiring care. This study sought to understand the digital mental health experiences and priorities of Canadians affected by mental health conditions (i.e. seekers, patients, and care partners). Methods: A national cross-sectional electronic survey of Canadians was administered through a market research firm's survey panel. Seekers, patients, and care partners were asked about their digital mental health experiences (e.g. uptake, barriers to access) and priorities. Survey responses were summarized using descriptive statistics. Results: Overall, 1003 participants completed the survey. 70.2% of participants routinely use digital mental health supports to support themselves or those they care for; however, only 28.6% of participants are satisfied with the available digital mental health supports. Most participants (73.3%) have encountered some barriers when accessing digital mental health supports. Awareness of digital mental health supports was a top barrier identified by participants. The top digital mental health priorities consisted of digital mental health curation, navigation, and a digital mental health passport. Conclusions: Most participants use digital mental health supports for themselves or others, however, many are unaware of digital mental health supports available. Efforts to improve navigating access to digital and in-person mental health services are seen as a top priority, highlighting the need to enable seekers, patients, and care partners to find the appropriate support and make decisions on how to best improve their mental health.
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 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".