No abstract

No abstract

Sexual minorities report more psychological distress, unmet mental health needs, and barriers to mental health care compared to heterosexuals, yet little is known about their barriers to seeking out mental health care. The present study reports the factors that influence intentions to seek out mental health care of a national survey of 398 sexual minorities. Structural equation modeling identified structural barriers, such as cost, time, and knowing how to access services, as the strongest predictor of sexual minorities’ help-seeking intentions. Latent moderators indicated sexual minorities’ help-seeking intentions varied depending upon their degree of psychological distress. This revealed a pattern where the most vulnerable participants (i.e., those with high structural barriers and negative help-seeking attitudes) were willing to pursue mental health care only when they were experiencing significant distress. Further, nearly 40% of participants reported unmet mental health needs, and structural barriers were the primary reasons for this deficit. Findings from this study contrast with previous mental health help-seeking research by emphasizing the importance of structural vulnerability, which refers to the external forces that frame and constrain choices, thereby impeding decision-making and limiting life options for those who are in systemically disadvantaged social positions. These findings are discussed in terms of counseling psychology training, practice, social justice advocacy and future healthcare research.

Prior research supports the learnability of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition Alternative Model of Personality Disorders (AMPD). However, researchers have yet to compare novice ratings on the AMPD’s Level of Personality Functioning Scale and the 25 pathological personality traits with expert ratings. Furthermore, the AMPD has yet to be examined with the idiographic Shedler-Westen Assessment Procedure (SWAP). We compared the aggregated AMPD clinical profile of a group of psychology doctoral students who learned the AMPD to high levels of reliability to that of an expert rater using the crucible of the classical case of “Madeline G.” Examination of AMPD and SWAP ratings of “Madeline G.” revealed excellent overall concordance but suggests that novice raters tend to perceive lower levels of personality impairment.