Addressing Stigma and Promoting Help-Seeking Among African Nova Scotian Youth Experiencing Psychosis and Other Mental Health Problems
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to gain an in-depth understanding of perceptions of mental illnesses (especially psychosis), help-seeking, barriers to help-seeking, and opportunities to facilitate help-seeking in the African Nova Scotian Community. METHODS: A qualitative interpretive narrative approach, using the focus group method, was employed to engage African Nova Scotians in discussions on their perceptions and beliefs about mental illnesses and help-seeking in their communities. Youth in Early Intervention services, their caregivers, youth in the community, their caregivers, community leaders, and health service providers, were recruited from four locations in the Halifax Regional Municipality. A total of 75 individuals (37 female, 38 male) participated in the study. Narrative emplotment was used to analyse data from focus groups. RESULTS: Findings from focus groups were categorized based on four areas of discussion: (a) perceptions about psychosis and other mental illnesses among youth, caregivers, service providers and community leaders (b) beliefs about help-seeking among youth, caregivers, services providers and community leaders; (c) barriers and facilitators to seeking help for mental illnesses; and (d) the content and format of educational resources to educate and support youth, families and communities. CONCLUSIONS: Stigma surrounding mental illnesses in the community, lack of knowledge of illness and available services, concerns regarding negative involvement with police, or dismissal of difficulties by health care providers represent significant barriers to help-seeking in this community. Additionally, barriers include a lack of trust in health care services and a dearth of African Nova Scotian service providers. Bolstering capacity of community organizations to support and educate individuals around illness as well as fostering collaboration between health services and community organizations could reduce barriers to care. Future research should focus on examining ways to engage African Nova Scotians in collaboration with existing community organizations.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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 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".