Help seeking and access to health and social services among Anishnaabe men
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Introduction: Although the issue of access to health and social services in Indigenous communities appears more pressing for men than for women, studies have tended to focus on women's perspectives. Moreover, most studies focus on the barriers preventing access to services rather than on facilitators of help seeking. The objective of this study was to identify factors facilitating help seeking within three Anishnaabe communities in Québec, Canada. Methods: Interviews were conducted with 15 Anishnaabe adult men having recently (<5 years) used at least one health or social service. Results: The interviews allowed to identify triggers of Anishnaabe men's help-seeking behaviour (e.g. crisis situation, awakening), motivators of help seeking (e.g. pursuit of well-being for oneself and family), their apprehensions about help seeking (e.g. mistrust towards service providers), as well as facilitators of help seeking (e.g., knowledge of services, ability to express emotions). Conclusions: To foster Anishnaabe men's help seeking, efforts should be made to reach out to them rather than waiting for them to reach out to services. Giving visibility to their engagement and personal development is likely to encourage other men to follow their example. Considering Anishnaabe men's strong sense of self-reliance, procedures of access to services should be simplified, and information sharing about services should be improved.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.005 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".