An Integrative Review of Barriers and Facilitators Associated With Mental Health Help Seeking Among Indigenous Populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Indigenous populations, compared with majority populations, have a reduced likelihood of receiving professional help for mental health, contributing to health disparities. To increase use of and access to mental health services for Indigenous people, specific factors that affect service use need to be examined. An integrative review was undertaken of the barriers to and facilitators of help seeking and service use for Indigenous populations in Canada, the United States, Australia, and the Pacific Islands. METHODS: Five databases-PsycINFO, PubMed, Web of Science, Social Services Abstracts, and Bibliography of Native North Americans-and gray literature were searched to identify original studies with data specific to Indigenous people. A qualitative analysis of common themes among the studies was conducted, along with a quality appraisal of included articles. Of the 1,010 records identified, the final synthesis included 41 articles. RESULTS: Six main themes emerged: informal supports, which were often used as a first choice for help seeking compared with formal services; structural obstacles and supports; stigma and shame; self-reliance and uncertainty about services; cultural factors and mistrust of mainstream services; and the need for outreach and information regarding mental illness and services. CONCLUSIONS: Policy implications include needed structural changes to decrease mistrust of mainstream systems and services and increased funding and resource availability. Along with technology-facilitated treatment, programs for Indigenous people, families, and communities that enhance education and foster positive relationships can serve as a first step toward Indigenous people becoming comfortable with the idea of talking about mental health and with seeking treatment.
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 | 0.008 | 0.033 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.014 | 0.013 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".