Socioeconomic Status and Self-Reported Barriers to Mental Health Service Use
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Socially disadvantaged individuals are at high risk for having their mental health service needs unmet. We explored the relations among education level, income level, and self-reported barriers to mental health service use for individuals with a mental illness, using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey: Mental Health and Well-Being (CCHS 1.2). METHODS: Our sample group comprised the 8.3% of adult respondents who met the CCHS 1.2 criteria for an anxiety or affective disorder in the past 12 months (n = 3101). We examined the association between education and income levels and self-reported accessibility, availability, or acceptability barriers to mental health care. RESULTS: Accessibility, availability, and acceptability barriers were reported by 3%, 5%, and 16% of our sample, respectively. Individuals with a high school diploma were less likely than individuals without a high school diploma to report acceptability barriers to care (odds ratio 0.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 0.93). Higher-income individuals were less likely than lower-income individuals to report acceptability barriers to care (odds ratio 0.69; 95% confidence interval, 0.50 to 0.96). Employment, distress level, age, and family structure were also associated with acceptability barriers. CONCLUSION: Issues related to acceptability explain most of the unmet need for mental health services. Program planners should consider the development of targeted approaches to service delivery and outreach for low-income, working individuals who have not completed high school.
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 | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".