MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388441636 · doi:10.1080/18387357.2023.2277757

Barriers to the use of mental health services amongst men in Nigeria and the potential of digital mental health support

2023· article· en· W4388441636 on OpenAlexaff
Prince Chiagozie Ekoh, Fidel Bethel Nnadi, Hope Nwabineli, Oluwagbemiga Oyinlola, Tochukwu Jonathan Okolie, Samuel C. Onuh, Emmanuel Onyebuchi Ugwu, Kusum Bhatta, Chinyere Onalu

Bibliographic record

VenueAdvances in Mental Health · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicDigital Mental Health Interventions
Canadian institutionsMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychologyPsychiatryMental health lawMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective Mental health problems are increasing. Nonetheless, the uptake of professional mental health support remains very low in Nigeria and other African countries, especially among men. This study explored the potential of digital mental health support in eliminating barriers to professional mental health services amongst men in Nigeria.Method Qualitative data were collected between July-August 2022 using an In-depth Interview (IDI) Guide with 24 men aged 18–38. NVivo 12 was employed to assist with the analysis.Results Digital mental health support has the potential to improve acceptance and uptake of professional mental health support services, reduce deterrent factors such as stigma, issues with confidentiality and trust, cost and availability. The use of digital support may also mitigate the nature of masculinity which deters some men from asking for help. Regulations around providing mental health support may improve men’s confidence in seeking professional mental health support.Conclusion Findings highlight the acceptability of digital mental health support for men, and the need for clinical practice regulations.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.485
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.382
Teacher spread0.363 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designQualitative
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations4
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAdvances in Mental HealthSame topicDigital Mental Health InterventionsFrench-language works237,207