Awareness of and willingness to access support among UK military personnel who reported a mental health difficulty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Being aware of and willing to access mental health services are important first steps in help-seeking behaviour. However, evidence suggests that UK armed forces personnel are not always aware of or willing to access sources of mental health support. This study explored which sources of support UK armed forces personnel are most aware of, and willing to use, for a self-reported mental health problem and the possible differences between serving and ex-serving personnel. Methods: Data were taken from a cross-sectional study of 1,432 UK serving and ex-serving personnel who had self-reported a mental health, stress, or emotional problem in the past three years. Results: Military personnel, irrespective of serving status, were most aware of, and willing to access, formal medical services. In contrast, there was a low awareness of and willingness to use ex-serving-specific support services among ex-serving personnel. Discussion: Future service delivery and policy should focus on improving the variety of sources of support that ex-serving personnel are aware of, and willing to use, to enable them to make informed choices about where to seek help if 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".