Managing depression in primary care: community survey.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To investigate family physicians' practice patterns for managing depression and mental health concerns among adolescent and adult patients. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: London, Ont, a mid-sized Canadian city. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-three family physicians identified through the London and District Academy of Medicine. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Practice patterns for managing depression, including screening, pharmacotherapy, psychotherapy, shared care, and training needs. RESULTS: Response rate was 63%. Family physicians reported spending a substantial portion of their time during patient visits (26% to 50%) addressing mental health issues, with depression being the most common issue (51% to 75% of patients with mental health issues). About 40% of respondents did routine mental health screening, and 60% screened patients with risk factors for depression. Shared care with mental health professionals was common (care was shared for 26% to 50% of patients). Physicians and patients were moderately satisfied with shared care, but were frustrated by long waiting lists and communication barriers. Most physicians provided psychotherapy to patients in the form of general advice. Differences in practice patterns were observed; physicians treated more adults than adolescents with depression, and they reported greater comfort in treating adults. Although 33% of physicians described using cognitive behavioural therapy (CBT), they reported having little training in CBT. Moderate interest was expressed in CBT training, with a preference for a workshop format. CONCLUSION: Although 40% of family physicians routinely screen patients for mental health issues, depression is often not detected. Satisfaction with shared care can be increased through better communication with mental health professionals. Physicians' management of adolescent patients can be improved by further medical training, consultation, and collaboration with mental health professionals. Training in evidence-based treatment of depression is particularly warranted given physicians' limited knowledge of CBT.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".