Help-Seeking Preferences and Factors Associated with Attitudes Toward Seeking Mental Health Services Among First-Year Undergraduates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Many first-year university students experience stressors that impact their adjustment and well-being. Their help-seeking attitudes and preferred sources of support may be associated with various factors. The purpose of the present study was to (1) examine help-seeking preferences amongst first-year university students, (2) explore factors associated with students’ attitudes toward seeking mental health services, and (3) identify perceived barriers associated with accessing formal sources of support. First-year students at a Canadian university (N = 167) completed a survey assessing help-seeking attitudes and preferences, as well as challenges associated with seeking support. Participants also provided information about their perceived levels of social support, personality characteristics, and their tendency to experience positive and negative affect. Findings suggest that social support and negative affect were significantly associated with positive attitudes toward seeking mental health services. However, students were more inclined to rely on informal sources of support, such as family members and friends, compared to formal sources of support available through on- or off-campus mental health services. For thosestudents who are inclined to access formal mental health support, barriers may impede access to care. Perceived barriers include cost and concerns about the availability of services and their overall effectiveness. These findings call for the creation of more opportunities for on-campus informal support in addition to better access to on-campus mental health services.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 teacher head, 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".