Men’s Counseling Center Utilization in a Pacific Northwest University and Implications for Outreach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the mental health crisis afflicting men on university campuses, they vastly underutilize on-campus counseling services. The current study compared 12 demographic characteristics for all men ( n = 396) who attended a particular university counseling center (CC) compared to the population of all men at that university over a particular academic year. The study used both a single-sample and two-sample data conceptualization and analysis. The intention was to be able to identify subgroups of university men who are underutilizing counseling services compared to their representation to inform outreach initiatives toward increasing uptake. Replicated findings across the two analytical strategies employed indicated that grade-point average, first-generation student status, major declaration, and the college of one’s academic major significantly predicted CCs utilization amongst this sample of university men. Based on these results, CCs seeking to increase men’s willingness to seek on-campus counseling services should focus outreach efforts toward subgroups of men who appear to most underutilize such services, such as men with lower grades, men who are first-generation college students, men who have not declared their academic major, and men from academic colleges such as business and economics. In addition, results indicated that common predictors of psychological help-seeking derived from samples comprising both men and women from past studies (without analyses of gender differences), such as age, race/ethnicity, international student status, and military experience, may not be generalizable to predicting CC utilization specifically by university men. Suggestions for outreach that considers common forms of masculinity are provided.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".