Barriers and facilitators of older adults for professional mental health help-seeking: a systematic review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Older adults are at an increased risk for mental health issues, yet they are less likely to seek professional help. This systematic review aims to identify and summarize literature on the barriers and facilitators that older adults face when seeking professional mental health help. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted using multiple databases including PubMed-Medline, EMBASE, ProQuest central, CINAHL and Scopus to identify relevant studies published between 2010 and 2021 that focused on barriers and/or facilitators to seeking help for depression, anxiety, and psychological distress among older adults aged 65 years or older. Studies' risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale and results of studies were synthesized guided by the methodological framework of Rodgers and colleagues. RESULTS: A total of eight cross-sectional studies, from Australia, United States, Mexico, Netherlands, and Malaysia met the inclusion criteria for this review. Included studies reported that the majority of their participants had anxiety or depression, yet they exhibited a preference for informal mental health help over professional help. Stigma, negative beliefs about mental health professional services, and cost were the most reported barriers. Main reported facilitators were prior positive experience with mental health services and high socioeconomic status. CONCLUSION: Older adults are in need of interventions normalizing mental health help seeking and ensuring these services are accessible in terms of costs. This should be the focus of policy makers, healthcare providers, and public health practitioners working with older adults. PROTOCOL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2021 CRD42021238853.
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 | 0.017 | 0.067 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.011 | 0.010 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".