Potentially inappropriate management of depressive symptoms among Ontario home care clients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the prevalence and correlates of potentially inappropriate pharmacotherapy (including potential under-treatment) for depression in adult home care clients. METHODS: A cross-sectional study of clients receiving services from Community Care Access Centres in Ontario. Three thousand three hundred and twenty-one clients were assessed with the Resident Assessment Instrument for Home Care (RAI-HC). A score of 3 or greater on the Depression Rating Scale (DRS), a validated scale embedded within the RAI-HC, indicates the presence of symptoms of depression. Medications listed on the RAI-HC were used to categorize treatment into two groups: potentially appropriate and potentially inappropriate antidepressant drug therapy. Adjusted logistic regression models were used to explore relevant predictors of potentially inappropriate pharmacotherapy. RESULTS: 12.5% (n=414) of clients had symptoms of depression and 17% received an appropriate antidepressant. Over half of clients (64.5%) received potentially inappropriate pharmacotherapy (including potential under-treatment). Age 75 years or older, higher levels of caregiver stress and the presence of greater comorbidity were associated with a higher risk of potentially inappropriate pharmacotherapy in multivariate analyses. Documentation of any psychiatric diagnosis on the RAI-HC and receiving more medications were significantly associated with a greater likelihood of appropriate drug treatment. CONCLUSION: Most clients with significant depressive symptoms were not receiving appropriate pharmacotherapy. Having a documented diagnosis of a psychiatric condition on the RAI-HC predicted appropriate pharmacotherapy. By increasing recognition of psychiatric conditions, the use of standardized, comprehensive assessment instruments in home care may represent an opportunity to improve mental health care in these settings.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".