Mental health service use among Canadian older adults with anxiety disorders and clinically significant anxiety symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Despite evidence of disproportionate underutilization of mental health services by older adults and by individuals with anxiety disorders, little is known specifically about service use by older adults with anxiety. This study examines the prevalence of mental health service use among older adults with anxiety disorders and clinically significant anxiety symptoms, as well as factors associated with service use. METHOD: The authors used data from the Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health and Well-Being, a nationally representative survey of community-dwelling Canadians. This study examined past-year use of mental health services in both the specialty mental health and general medical sectors by adults aged 55+ (N = 12,792). Logistic regression analyses examined predictors of service use among those with anxiety disorders (N = 279) and clinically significant anxiety symptoms (N = 880). RESULTS: Only 20.8% of older adults with an anxiety disorder and no mood disorder used services in the past year, compared to 43.1% of those with a mood disorder and 72.7% of those with comorbid disorders. In the final logistic regression models, only need variables were significant predictors of service use among older adults with anxiety disorders and among those with significant anxiety symptoms. CONCLUSION: Findings indicate that anxious older adults are less likely to use mental health services than those who are depressed. While predisposing and enabling factors do not appear to impede service use, the need for help does. Anxious older adults and those they interact with may not be interpreting their anxiety symptoms as warranting services.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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 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".