Perceived barriers to care and access to university mental health support services among first-year undergraduates: findings from the U-Flourish study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: = 443) with unmet mental health needs. METHODS: Logistic regression tested which perceived practical, attitudinal, and stigma-related barriers predicted service use. Subgroup analyses targeted screen-positives for anxiety (GAD-7) and/or depression (PHQ-9). RESULTS: Reduced service use was linked to attitudinal barriers, minimizing problems (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.42-0.98) and difficulty discussing problems (OR = 0.59; CI = 0.38-0.91), especially among screen positives for the latter (OR = 0.49; CI = 0.27-0.89); practical barriers, uncertainty about how to get help (OR = 0.64; CI = 0.42-0.97) and time limitations (OR = 0.66; CI = 0.44-0.98), especially in screen-positives for both (OR = 0.46; CI = 0.26-0.79; OR = 0.47; CI = 0.27-0.79); and stigma-related barriers, feeling ashamed (OR = 0.63; CI = 0.40-0.98), appearing weak (OR = 0.65; CI = 0.42-0.98), and friends' reactions (OR = 0.58; CI = 0.38-0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Multiple perceived barriers were associated with a reduced likelihood of accessing university mental health services. Developing mental health literacy and streamlined pathways may improve timely support access for students with unmet needs.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".