Community perspectives on adolescent mental health stigma in American Samoa
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite reports of mental health concerns among adolescents in American Samoa, little is known about the current mental health burden. Furthermore, previous literature has identified mental illness-related stigma as a significant global barrier to mental health care access and treatment. By gathering various perspectives from adult stakeholders and adolescent participants, this community-partnered qualitative study aimed to describe the perceived stigmatization of mental health in American Samoa. Employing the Pacific-specific Fa'afaletui research framework, 28 adult informants of differing professions, ages, and genders participated in semi-structured, in-depth virtual interviews from October 2020 to February 2021. In June 2022, 35 adolescents took part in five online focus groups to validate themes generated from the adult interviews. After duplicate coding of the transcripts, the research team adopted a deductive approach to identify levels of mental health stigmatization before mapping them on to a socio-ecological model. Participants described multiple levels of mental health stigma an adolescent struggling with mental health challenges in American Samoa may encounter. Although there is progress in mobilizing services and educational resources to address various mental health needs, the perceived structural, social, interpersonal, and self-stigma of mental illness may prevent an adolescent in American Samoa from seeking social support and utilizing mental health services. Current and future interventions promoting adolescent mental wellness in American Samoa should focus on addressing the multi-level aspects of mental health stigma.
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 | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.009 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".