“That’s just not something we do”: understanding why black individuals in Canada are not seeking professional help for mental health needs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present qualitative study aimed to inductively generate a Black help-seeking theory based on the lived experiences of Black Canadians using a Straussian grounded theory approach. Thirty interviews were conducted with Black men (n = 15) and women (n = 15) from various regions across Canada. The analytic strategy included open coding, selective coding, constant comparison, theoretical sampling, and theory construction. The findings and the emerged theoretical model point to Perceived (Dis)connection between Culture and Help-Seeking as the central, core category in Black help-seeking. Specifically, the findings highlight that Black Canadians may avoid psychological help-seeking because the notion of help-seeking often conflicted with their perceived cultural norms. Consequently, this led to shame, pessimism, and unwillingness towards help-seeking. The 10 critical sociocultural and help-seeking related thematic categories identified in the resultant theoretical model point to intricate, interactive pathways among these factors. Through qualitatively analyzing Black Canadians’ narratives and lived experiences, this study achieved an in-depth and multi-faceted empirical and conceptual understanding of Black psychological help-seeking perspectives and processes. The findings can help guide and inform Black help-seeking research and offer practical insights to improve mental health services for Black communities.
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 | 0.005 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.034 | 0.015 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| 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".