Mental health literacy reduces the impact of internalized stigma on willingness to seek mental health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Older adults (OA) are the age demographic least likely to seek help, and internalized stigma is an important reason why. We sought to further our understanding of which OA are particularly likely to be negatively impacted by internalized stigma, and why, by investigating mental health literacy (MHL) as a moderator within the internalized stigma model (ISM) of help seeking. Methods: We utilized conditional-process analysis of cross-sectional, secondary data from 350 distressed OA. Participants completed an online survey consisting of measures of distress, MHL, public and self-stigma of seeking help, help-seeking attitudes, and willingness to seek services. Results: MHL moderated the ISM; distressed OA with low MHL were more likely to have public stigma internalized as self-stigma, which in turn reduced their willingness to seek services. The direct negative impact of self-stigma on help-seeking attitudes and willingness to seek services was also stronger among distressed OA with low MHL. Conclusions: These results increase our understanding of which OA are unlikely to seek mental health help, and why. Furthermore, MHL is a malleable construct and can serve as the target of interventions designed to increase the help-seeking propensity among OA in need of help.
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 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".