Mental health services use and depressive symptom scores among gay and bisexual men in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To evaluate the association between mental health services (MHS) use and depressive symptom scores among gay and bisexual men (GBM) and compare with heterosexual men in Canada. METHODS: We used data from the 2015-2016 cycles of the Canadian Community Health Survey. Depressive symptoms were assessed using the PHQ-9 questionnaire (prior two weeks). MHS consultations with any licensed mental health professional (prior year) were categorized as 0, 1, 2-11, ≥ 12. We fit linear regression models to quantify the associations between MHS use and PHQ-9 scores, with an interaction term for sexual identity (GBM and heterosexual men). Models were adjusted for socioeconomic and health-related indicators. RESULTS: Among 21,383 men, 97.3% self-identified as heterosexual and 2.7% as GBM. Compared to heterosexual men, GBM used any MHS (21% vs. 10%, p < 0.05) and consulted ≥ 2 health professionals for their mental health (6% vs. 2%, p < 0.05) in the preceding year more frequently. Overall, mean PHQ-9 scores were higher among GBM compared to heterosexual men (3.9 vs. 2.3, p < 0.05). Relative to no consultations, higher MHS use (2-11, ≥ 12 consultations) was associated with higher PHQ-9 scores (1.4-4.9 points higher). Associations between MHS use and PHQ-9 scores did not differ statistically between GBM and heterosexual men. CONCLUSION: Our findings were inconclusive in demonstrating a difference between heterosexual men and GBM for the association between MHS use and PHQ-9 scores. However, GBM consistently had higher average PHQ-9 scores for every category of consultations. Considering the higher use of MHS and higher burden of depressive symptoms among GBM, more research is needed.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".