Correlates of Self-Medication for Anxiety Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Self-medication is a common behavior among individuals with anxiety disorders, yet few studies have examined the correlates of this behavior. The current study addresses this issue by exploring the pattern of mental health service use and quality of life among people who self-medicate for anxiety. Data came from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions and was limited to the subsample of individuals meeting criteria for an anxiety disorder in the past 12 months (n = 4880). Multiple regression analyses compared 3 groups-(1) no self-medication, (2) self-medication with alcohol, and (3) self-medication with drugs, on mental health service use and quality of life. After adjusting for potentially confounding covariates, individuals who engaged in self-medication had significantly higher service use compared with people with anxiety disorders who did not self-medicate (adjusted odds ratio = 1.41, 95% CI = 1.06-1.89). Self-medication was also associated with a lower mental health-related quality of life compared with those who did not self-medicate. Clinicians should recognize and respond to the unique needs of this particular subpopulation of individuals with anxiety disorders.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".