MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402626984 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmen.0000065

Barriers to care for mental health conditions in Canada

2024· article· en· W4402626984 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Monnica T. Williams, Muna Osman, Aidan Kaplan, Sonya C. Faber

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS mental health. · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsMental healthMental health careHealth carePsychologyNursingPsychiatryMedicinePolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

There are growing concerns in Canada about access barriers to quality mental health care, which has worsened significantly by the COVID-19 pandemic and for some Canadians more than others. With a nationally representative sample of 1501 adults, surveyed by the Angus Reid Institute, this study examined the mental health conditions Canadians experience the most difficulties in accessing care. Among half of the respondents who sought mental health care, the majority encountered challenges in accessing help for posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) (34%) and depression (33%). When examining the data based only on those seeking care for specific conditions, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), substance use disorders, and generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) emerged as those for which it was most difficult to find treatment. Indigenous and Black Canadians had significantly more difficulty finding care across several conditions. We discuss the implications of these findings, including the critical need to increase the supply and diversity of mental health providers across Canada. This study is one of the first to provide quantitative data on the perceived barriers in accessing mental health care, while exploring the role of race and ethnicity and other social identities.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.138
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.033
GPT teacher head0.395
Teacher spread0.362 · 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 designNot applicable
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

Citations10
Published2024
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLOS mental health.Same topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207