Improving quality of primary care reduces depression and improves quality of life in adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Asarnow JR, Jaycox LH, Duan N, et al . Effectiveness of a quality improvement intervention for adolescent depression in primary care clinics: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2005;293:311–19.[OpenUrl][1][CrossRef][2][PubMed][3][Web of Science][4] Q What are the effects of improving quality of primary care in adolescents with depression? ### ![Graphic][5]</img>Design: Randomised controlled trial. ### ![Graphic][6]</img>Allocation: Concealed. ### ![Graphic][7]</img>Blinding: Unblinded. ### ![Graphic][8]</img>Follow up period: Six months. ### ![Graphic][9]</img>Setting: Six primary care centres in the US: two public sector; two managed care; two academic health programmes. ### ![Graphic][10]</img>Patients: 418 adolescents aged 13–21 years, presenting at clinic with either of two criteria: endorsed “stem items” for major depression or dysthymia from 12 month Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI-12), one week or more of depressive symptoms in the past month, and a total Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) score of ⩾16; or a CES-D score of ⩾24. Exclusion criteria were: not English-speaking, clinician not … [1]: {openurl}?query=rft.jtitle%253DJAMA%26rft.stitle%253DJAMA%26rft.aulast%253DAsarnow%26rft.auinit1%253DJ.%2BR.%26rft.volume%253D293%26rft.issue%253D3%26rft.spage%253D311%26rft.epage%253D319%26rft.atitle%253DEffectiveness%2Bof%2Ba%2BQuality%2BImprovement%2BIntervention%2Bfor%2BAdolescent%2BDepression%2Bin%2BPrimary%2BCare%2BClinics%253A%2BA%2BRandomized%2BControlled%2BTrial%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Adoi%252F10.1001%252Fjama.293.3.311%26rft_id%253Dinfo%253Apmid%252F15657324%26rft.genre%253Darticle%26rft_val_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Ajournal%26ctx_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ver%253DZ39.88-2004%26url_ctx_fmt%253Dinfo%253Aofi%252Ffmt%253Akev%253Amtx%253Actx [2]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=10.1001/jama.293.3.311&link_type=DOI [3]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=15657324&link_type=MED&atom=%2Febmental%2F8%2F3%2F76.atom [4]: /lookup/external-ref?access_num=000226358400025&link_type=ISI [5]: /embed/inline-graphic-1.gif [6]: /embed/inline-graphic-2.gif [7]: /embed/inline-graphic-3.gif [8]: /embed/inline-graphic-4.gif [9]: /embed/inline-graphic-5.gif [10]: /embed/inline-graphic-6.gif
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".