IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pmen00/0000589.html

Comparing barriers to employee assistance program utilization in Canada and the United States using natural language processing and machine learning

Author

Listed:
  • Sana Siddiqui
  • Javier Mencia Ledo
  • Raihana Premji
  • Hong Ki Chloe Lau
  • Kishana Balakrishnar
  • Charlene Choi
  • Paula Allen
  • Allison Kelly
  • Marilyn Grand’Maison
  • Donia Obeidat
  • Ali Bani-Fatemi
  • Behdin Nowrouzi-Kia

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Sana Siddiqui & Javier Mencia Ledo & Raihana Premji & Hong Ki Chloe Lau & Kishana Balakrishnar & Charlene Choi & Paula Allen & Allison Kelly & Marilyn Grand’Maison & Donia Obeidat & Ali Bani-Fatemi & , 2026. "Comparing barriers to employee assistance program utilization in Canada and the United States using natural language processing and machine learning," PLOS Mental Health, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(4), pages 1-24, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pmen00:0000589
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmen.0000589
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000589
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pmen.0000589&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pmen.0000589?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pmen00:0000589. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: mentalhealth (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/mentalhealth/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.