MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4414193927 · doi:10.1080/01612840.2025.2544163

A Qualitative Exploration of Experiences of Accessing Services Among Patients with Mental Health and Addiction Disorders

2025· article· en· W4414193927 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Alana Glecia, Hua Li

Bibliographic record

VenueIssues in Mental Health Nursing · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicMental Health and Patient Involvement
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsAddictionMental healthMental healthcareHealth careMental health serviceQualitative researchCoping (psychology)Addiction medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The mental health crisis in Canada is escalating rapidly, placing immense pressure on the healthcare system. This is particularly concerning for individuals with mental health and addiction disorders, who depend on primary and community-based healthcare services to manage their conditions. Inadequate and delayed care for these populations can result in worsening symptoms, higher mortality rates, and excessive reliance on emergency services. This study explores patients' experiences with accessing primary and community-based healthcare service to enhance service accessibility and utilization, and address excessive use of emergency services, which are often poorly equipped to provide long-term mental health and addiction care. Interviews with 22 individuals living with mental health and/or addiction disorders highlight the significance of positive relationships with healthcare providers, the impact of systemic barriers on help-seeking behaviors, and the coping strategies developed to navigate these challenges. The paper concludes with actionable policy recommendations aimed at addressing barriers and strengthening facilitators to improve healthcare delivery to those with mental health and/or addiction disorders.

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)0.010
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.015
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Qualitative · Consensus signal: Qualitative
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.024
Threshold uncertainty score0.052

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0100.015
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0120.011
Scholarly communication0.0060.005
Open science0.0020.009
Research integrity0.0020.005
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.099
GPT teacher head0.511
Teacher spread0.411 · 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 designQualitative
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 routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueIssues in Mental Health NursingSame topicMental Health and Patient InvolvementFrench-language works237,207