Prevalence of Psychotropic Use in a South Australian Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To determine the prevalence of psychotropic medication use in a South Australian population. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews with a random and representative sample of the South Australian population (at least 15 years of age) living in metropolitan and rural areas between March and June 2004. RESULTS: From 4700 households selected, 3015 participants were interviewed (65.9% response rate). Of the respondents, 10.6% were taking psychotropic medications; psychotropic drug use was higher in females (14.4%) than in males (6.8%), and increased with age. Antidepressants were the most common category of psychotropics reported by respondents (6.8%), followed by anxiolytics (1.8%), hypnotics and sedatives (1.5%) and antipsychotics (0.6%). The majority (64.8%) of those respondents who were taking a tricyclic antidepressant were on a dose of 50 mg or less. Only 0.07% of respondents were taking lithium. CONCLUSIONS: The use of psychotropic medications was higher than recently reported studies conducted in the UK, the USA, Europe and Canada. More detailed enquiry about the indication for such use appears desirable in order to ascertain whether higher use in this Australian population is clinically appropriate.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".