MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401543395 · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11396-z

Mental health service use and shortages among a cohort of women living with HIV in Canada

2024· article· en· W4401543395 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Seerat Chawla, Angela Kaida, Marie‐Josée Brouillette, Bluma Kleiner, Danièle Dubuc, Lashanda Skerritt, Ann N. Burchell, Danielle Rouleau, Mona Loutfy, Alexandra de Pokomandy

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Health Services Research · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsWomen's College HospitalUniversité de MontréalPublic Health OntarioUniversity of TorontoSt. Michael's HospitalMcGill University Health CentreSimon Fraser UniversityMcGill University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchUniversité de MontréalUniversity of TorontoDalhousie UniversityPublic Health AgencySimon Fraser UniversityMcGill UniversityMcGill University Health CentrePublic Health Agency of CanadaQueen's UniversityOntario HIV Treatment NetworkStyrelsen för Internationellt UtvecklingssamarbeteUniversité du Québec à MontréalMcMaster UniversityCentre Hospitalier Universitaire de QuébecAlberta Health Services
KeywordsMedicineHealth administrationNursing researchHealth informaticsPublic healthMental healthEconomic shortageMental health serviceHealth services researchHuman immunodeficiency virus (HIV)CohortEnvironmental healthCohort studyGerontologyFamily medicineNursingPsychiatryInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of mental health conditions among women with HIV in Canada ranges between 29.5% and 57.4%, highlighting the need for accessible mental health care. We aimed to (1) describe the availability and use of mental health services among women with HIV and (2) identify characteristics associated with reporting that shortages of these services presented a problem in their care. METHODS: Baseline data from the Canadian HIV Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health Cohort Study were analysed. Self-reported availability and use of mental health services were examined using descriptive statistics. Participants indicated whether a lack of mental health support was a problem in their care. Logistic regression models were constructed to determine associations between sociodemographic, clinical, and psychosocial characteristics and reported problematic shortages. RESULTS: Of 1422 women, 26.7% (n = 380) used mental health services in the last year, which most accessed through their HIV clinic. Thirty-eight percent (n = 541) reported that a shortage of mental health support was a problem in their care. Among this subset, 22.1% (n = 119) used services at their HIV clinic, 26.5% (n = 143) reported available services but did not use them, and 51.4% (n = 277) either indicated that these services were unavailable, did not know if such services were available, or were unengaged in HIV care. Factors associated with reporting problematic shortages included rural residence [adjusted odds ratio (aOR): 1.69, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.03-2.77], higher education level (aOR: 1.43, 95% CI: 1.02-2.02), and higher HIV stigma score (aOR: 1.03, 95% CI: 1.02-1.03). Conversely, African/Caribbean/Black identity (aOR: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.26-0.54), history of recreational drug use (aOR: 0.56, 95% CI: 0.39-0.81), and Quebec residence (aOR: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.50-0.96) were associated with lower odds of reporting service shortages. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the HIV clinic as the primary location of mental health service use. However, existing services may not be sufficient to reach all patients or meet specific needs. Furthermore, the low uptake among those reporting a shortage suggests a lack of connection to services or patient knowledge about their availability. Characteristics associated with reporting shortages reflect geographic and socioeconomic disparities that must be accounted for in future service design.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.086

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.035
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.359 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations3
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Health Services Research→Same topicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions→French-language works237,207→