MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4411055642 · doi:10.1101/2025.06.03.25328937

Sociodemographic and Mental Health Predictors of Mental Health Service Use Across Provider Types

2025· preprint· en· W4411055642 on OpenAlexaffabout
Nelson Pang, Jessie Yeung

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoCentre for Addiction and Mental Health
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthMental health serviceService providerEnvironmental healthBusinessPsychologyService (business)PsychiatryMedicineMarketing

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To examine trends in mental health service use across four provider types (family doctors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers) and identify sociodemographic predictors of provider-specific access in Canada. METHODS: This study analyzes seven cycles (2007-2020) of the Canadian Community Health Survey, a nationally representative cross-sectional survey. Trends over time were examined using weighted proportions and counts of service users. Weighted multivariable logistic regression models were applied to the 2019-2020 cycle to assess associations between sociodemographic factors and provider-specific service use. RESULTS: Family doctors were consistently the most accessed providers for mental health concerns, followed by psychologists and social workers, with psychiatrists being least accessed. Psychologist and social worker use increased between 2017 and 2019. In the adjusted regression models (2019-2020), women had higher odds of using family doctors (AOR = 1.21, 95% CI: 1.05-1.39) and social workers (1.19, 1.02-1.40) and lower odds of psychiatrists (AOR = 0.66, 95% CI:0.55-0.79) than men. Adults 65 + had greater odds of family-doctor use (AOR = 4.82, 95% CI: 3.59-6.47) and lower odds of psychologist (AOR = 0.33, 95% CI: 0.24-0.45) and social-worker use (AOR = 0.21, 95% CI:0.16-0.29) than ages 12-17. Post-secondary education (vs less than secondary school) was associated with higher psychologist use (AOR = 1.83, 95% CI 1.12-2.98). Higher income (≥$80,000 vs < $20,000) was associated with lower psychiatrist use (AOR = 0.66, 95% CI 0.50-0.86). Non-Indigenous respondents more often used psychologists (AOR = 1.58, 95% CI: 1.13-2.23), and respondents who are not a visible minority more often used family doctors (AOR = 1.37, 95% CI:1.06-1.77). CONCLUSION: This study reveals a stratified mental health care system in Canada, where sociodemographic factors shape who accesses which providers. While primary care dominates, growth in psychologist and social worker use suggests shifting patterns of engagement. Findings underscore the need for policies that address financial and structural barriers, promote equitable access, and expand coverage for community-based mental health providers.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
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 score0.944
Threshold uncertainty score0.113

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
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 head0.043
GPT teacher head0.401
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

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicGeriatric Care and Nursing Homes→French-language works237,207→