ArticlePLOS mental health2026
Comparing barriers to employee assistance program utilization in Canada and the United States using natural language processing and machine learning.
Article in PLOS mental health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Workplace Wellbeing in Ontario's Public Sector: Employee and Employer Perspectives on Workplace Supports.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2026Article
- Health, Well-Being, Work Ability and Work Conditions Among EAP Non-Users in Canada and the U.S.: A Quantitative Cross-National Comparison Study.Health services insights · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Employee Assistance Program (EAP)s provide critical mental health support, yet utilization remains low in both Canada and the United States. Although qualitative studies have examined general barriers to EAP use, few have compared country-specific perceptions. This study explores barriers to EAP usage and explores potential differences in barriers between Canadian and American workers using natural language processing (NLP). This mixed-methods study, involving data transformation, included 30 semi-structured interviews with EAP-eligible employees (aged 18-65 years) in Canada and the US who had not previously used EAP services. Interviews were analyzed thematically using an inductive approach in alignment with Braun and Clarke's Thematic Analysis. The qualitative portion of this study was reported in accordance with the Consolidated Criteria for Reporting Qualitative Research (COREQ) guidelines. In Phase 2 of the study, a BERT-based NLP model was trained to classify qualitative quotes by country. In phase 1, three core themes were observed: (1) Structural, informational and systematic barriers influencing EAP accessibility and coverage; (2) Reluctance to use EAP services due to psychosocial and perceptual barriers; and (3) Service quality, scope and cultural relevance to those with multiple social identities. While most barriers were common across countries, US participants reported financial concerns exclusively. Comparatively, in the NLP analysis, financial accessibility and comprehensive support through diverse EAP offerings were important in classifying American quotes, while stigma, vulnerability, and fear of workplace judgement and perceived quality and cultural relevance of EAPs were important in classifying Canadian quotes. Although many barriers to using EAPs are shared, financial and perceptual differences exist between Canadian and American workers. EAPs may benefit from implementing country-specific strategies. This could include creating strategies reducing stigma and quality concerns in Canada, while addressing concerns about cost and alternative options in the United States. Further studies should focus on generalizability and explore sector-specific and longitudinal trends in EAP perceptions.
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.