Improving prevalence estimates of mental health and well-being indicators among sexual minority men: a propensity-weighting approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence and relative disparities of mental health outcomes and well-being indicators are often inconsistent across studies of sexual minority men (SMM) due to selection biases in community-based surveys (nonprobability sample), as well as misclassification biases in population-based surveys where some SMM often conceal their sexual orientation identities. The present study estimated the prevalence of mental health related outcomes (depressive symptoms, mental health service use, anxiety) and well-being indicators (loneliness and self-rated mental health) among SMM, broken down by sexual orientation using the adjusted logistic propensity score (ALP) weighting. We applied the ALP to correct for selection biases in the 2019 Sex Now data (a community-based survey of SMMs in Canada) by reweighting it to the 2015-2018 Canadian Community Health Survey (a population survey from Statistics Canada). For all SMMs, the ALP-weighted prevalence of depressive symptoms was 15.96% (95% CI, 11.36%-23.83%), while for mental health service use, it was 32.13% (95% CI, 26.09%-41.20%). The ALP estimates lie in between the crude estimates from the two surveys. This method was successful in providing a more accurate estimate than relying on results from one survey alone. We recommend to the use of ALP on other minority populations under certain assumptions. This article is part of a Special Collection on Mental Health.
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 | 0.047 | 0.128 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".