Seeking Help for Mental Health Problems outside the Conventional Health Care System: Results from the European Study of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMeD)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: In certain countries, it is not uncommon to turn to professionals outside the conventional health care system for psychological problems. As this situation is not well documented in Europe, we assessed use of nonconventional care for mental health in 6 European countries. METHOD: A cross-sectional survey was conducted in representative samples of noninstitutionalized adults in 6 European countries. Participants (n = 8796) completed a survey, which included, among other items, the Composite International Diagnostic Interview 3.0 and in-depth questions about lifetime consultations for mental health problems. RESULTS: Among the respondents (n = 2928) who reported having already sought help in their lifetime for psychological problems (20.0%), 8.6% turned to complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) providers, such as chiropractors and herbalists, and a similar proportion (8.4%) to religious advisers such as ministers, priests, or rabbis. Only a small proportion (2.9%) consulted only these professionals for their problems. CAM providers were more frequently used in the Netherlands (13.5%) and Germany (9.4%), while religious advisers were more often consulted in Italy (12.6%) and Germany (11.6%). Multivariate analyses confirmed differences between countries and revealed that people turning to religious advisers tended to be older, foreign born, and with alcohol problems, whereas those consulting CAM providers were younger, wealthier, and more frequently depressed. CONCLUSIONS: In Europe, patients who turn to CAM therapists and those who seek help from religious advisers for psychological problems are not exactly the same. In addition, these professionals are not consulted frequently in most countries, and are almost always associated with more traditional follow-up when used.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".