Australian Men’s Help-Seeking Pathways for Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Globally, there has been a substantial increase in the number of men being diagnosed with anxiety disorders. Despite this, men’s mental health research often focusses on uncovering why men don’t, rather than why they do, seek help. Within this context, men’s help-seeking pathways for anxiety are poorly understood. This study mapped the help-seeking pathways of 419 Australian-based men for anxiety. Respondents 16 to 77 years-old (M = 40.92 years, SD = 15.36) reported multiple instances of help-seeking (n=321, 77%) elaborating on their drivers for help-seeking via an open-text qualitative survey. Thematic analysis of men’s responses was used to generate three themes, first detailing common tipping points of men’s anxiety (namely relationship issues and work stress), and second, the reclusive causes and consequences of men’s anxiety (burdensome symptoms and unmet expectations). These two themes converged into a third theme of help-seeking where defeatist (i.e., resigned abandonment self-management strategies) or defiant (proactive motivation in reaction to new events) motivations propelled men into either assisted or solitary help-seeking pathways The current study findings afford important insights about the drivers that lead men to seek help for anxiety across the life course. Interventions targeting men’s help-seeking for anxiety should accentuate the potential benefits of community-based mental health treatment within the context of men’s social connectedness. Such interventions would also benefit from leveraging positive masculine ideals including strength, emotional-control and competition which can be both a barrier to, and driver for, help-seeking in the context of men’s anxiety.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".