Openness to Mental Health Information and Barriers to Accessing Care Among Midwestern Farmers
Open accessAbstract
Agricultural producers experience elevated stress, limited mental health access, and cultural norms that can discourage help-seeking. This study examined farmers’ preferences for receiving mental health information and the barriers that impede care. Data came from a regional needs assessment of 1024 producers across 12 Midwestern states who completed online or paper surveys, including questions on willingness to seek or receive information and the 30-item Barriers to Access to Care Evaluation. Analyses included descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate methods to explore demographic and behavioral predictors. Results indicated that while 74.1% were open to receiving mental health information, notable proportions were unwilling to seek (27.8%) or receive (28.4%) it, and 18.7% were unwilling to do either. Preferred sources were medical providers, mental health professionals, and family members, with agricultural retailers least favored. Women, younger producers, veterans, those with mental health symptoms, and individuals with higher education, anxiety, or depression showed distinct patterns of openness and barrier endorsement. Attitudinal barriers were the most common across groups. Findings highlight the importance of culturally relevant approaches that leverage trusted messengers, reduce stigma, and tailor interventions to specific subgroups to strengthen mental health outreach in agricultural communities.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 42
- Authors
- Cuthbertson, C., Iwinski, S., Billington, A., & Rudolphi, J.
- Affiliations
- University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign (US)
- University of Vermont (US)
- Corresponding author
- Rudolphi, Josie
- Venue
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
- Publisher
- MDPI AG
- Published
- 2025-12-24
- Volume
- 23
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 27
- ISSN
- 1660-4601 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC12840863
- OpenAlex
- W7117140962
- Cited by
- 0
- References
- 42
- FWCI
- 0.00
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Agriculture, National Institute of Food and Agriculture (2020-70028-32728)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Agriculture and Farm Safety
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Suicide and Self-Harm Studies
- Keywords
- farmers, mental health, help-seeking, barriers to care, stigma, cultural norms, trusted messengers, mental health outreach, anxiety, depression, veterans, gender differences, Midwestern United States
- MeSH terms
- Farmers, Adult, Aged, Female, Health Services Accessibility, Humans, Male, Mental Health, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, Midwestern United States, Young Adult
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review