Previous Out-of-Pocket Drug Expenditures and Patterns of Antidepressant Use among Workers Receiving Depression-Related Disability Benefits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored the effects of out-of-pocket expenditures on antidepressant use among workers receiving depression-related short-term disability benefits. The authors examine the association between workers' out-of-pocket expenditures prior to their disability episode and their use, or delay in use, of antidepressants during the episode. The results indicate that higher out-of-pocket expenditures for antidepressants prior to the disability episode were associated with higher odds of using an antidepressant during the episode. However, results also suggested that higher out-of-pocket expenditures for other prescriptions were associated with significantly lower odds of an antidepressant claim during the episode. Greater prior out-of-pocket expenditures for other prescription drugs may serve as a barrier to accessing antidepressant treatment. Workers receiving short-term disability benefits who have previously purchased prescriptions for other conditions may be more sensitive to out-of-pocket expenditures for antidepressant prescriptions.
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 | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".