Exploring Canadian newcomer and immigrant parents’ usage and preferences for mental health services
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Immigrant and newcomer parents face significant barriers to accessing mental health care in Canada. The present exploratory study investigated the following questions: (RQ1) what motivators and barriers to accessing mental health supports in Canada are reported by immigrant parents, (RQ2) what features would they want included in an online resource, (RQ3) what are the relationships between stressful experiences, family resources, social support, and motivators/barriers reported by immigrant parents, and (RQ4) what are the differences in these variables between immigrant and Canadian-born parents? 152 Canadian immigrant parents were recruited using the online AskingCanadians platform where they were redirected to take an online survey via REDCap. Data was examined using descriptive statistics, correlations, regression, and independent samples t-tests. For RQ1, the highest endorsed motivator was wanting to improve one’s own parenting skills and the highest endorsed barrier was concerns about financial costs. For RQ2, parents reported wanting to access a shorter program via the web that was delivered and developed by psychologists. For RQ3, immigrant parents’ motivators and barriers were correlated with stressful experiences and social support. Regression and moderation analyses further explored these relationships. For RQ4, immigrant parents reported fewer stressful experiences, family resources, and motivators than Canadian-born parents. This research demonstrated that stressful experiences and social support could be worth investigating in future research as possible avenues for reducing barriers and increasing motivators. This study also provided a first step toward creating online resources for parent populations who have greater difficulty in accessing mental health care but are in critical need of it.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.007 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".