MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4415970534 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmen.0000464

The relationship between consultation modality and mental health professional type and perceived quality of care and mental health outcomes: A comparison between employed and unemployed individuals

2025· article· en· W4415970534 on OpenAlexaffabout
Kishana Balakrishnar, Raihana Premji, Behdin Nowrouzi‐Kia

Bibliographic record

VenuePLOS mental health. · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicEmployment and Welfare Studies
Canadian institutionsCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthUniversity Health NetworkLaurentian UniversityUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMental healthPsychological interventionLogistic regressionHealth careMarital statusOddsQuality (philosophy)Mental health care

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Mental health is becoming increasingly acknowledged as a critical factor to one's well-being. Poor mental health can have serious impacts, particularly among working and non-working adults, requiring the need for effective treatments and interventions tailored to them. The type of mental health professional consulted and the type of consultation modality may be associated with individuals' perceptions of the quality of care that they receive as well as their mental health outcomes. Therefore, this study aims to examine the relationship between the type of consultation with different mental health professionals and the perceived quality of care and mental health outcomes among employed and unemployed Canadians. Data was utilized from the 2024 Mental Health and Access to Care Survey by Statistics Canada. Independent variables included the type of mental health professional consulted (psychiatrist, family doctor, psychologist, and social worker) and consultation modality (in-person, remote, and hybrid). Primary outcome variables were self-reported quality of care and perceived mental health outcomes. Multivariable logistic regression models were used to calculate odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals, controlling for age, gender, marital status, and visible minority status. A total of 1,222 participants were analyzed. Unemployed participants who accessed hybrid psychiatry services were significantly less likely, about one-sixth, to report lower quality of care than those using in-person services (AOR: 0.16; 95% CI: 0.02-0.98). Similarly, those who used hybrid family doctor services were less likely, about one-fifth, to report lower quality of care (AOR: 0.21; 95% CI: 0.07-0.66). No statistically significant differences in mental health outcomes were found across consultation modality and professional type for both employed and unemployed groups. By analyzing both the modality of care and the professional consulted, notable differences emerged in self-reported quality of care. Future research should further explore how inter-professional collaboration can improve the quality of care and mental health outcomes.

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)0.004
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 score0.254
Threshold uncertainty score0.504

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.154
GPT teacher head0.500
Teacher spread0.346 · 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 venuePLOS mental health.Same topicEmployment and Welfare StudiesFrench-language works237,207