MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2109735096 · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.54.6.878

Mental Health Services Received by Depressed Persons Who Visited General Practitioners and Family Doctors

2003· article· en· W2109735096 on OpenAlexaffabout
JianLi Wang, Donald B. Langille, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatric Services · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsReferralMental healthMedicineDepression (economics)Family medicinePopulationPsychiatrySocioeconomic statusEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVES: This study estimated the rates of mental health service provision and of specialist referral in primary care in Canada and investigated factors associated with receiving mental health services and with referral to mental health specialists among persons who reported major depressive episodes. METHOD: S: Data from the 1998-1999 Canadian National Population Health Survey were used. The 608 respondents who reported having major depressive episodes in the 12 months preceding the survey and who reported contacting a general practitioner or family doctor during that time were included in the study. The rates of provision of mental health services by general practitioners and family doctors and of referral to mental health specialists were calculated. Demographic, socioeconomic, and clinical characteristics associated with receiving mental health services and with referral to specialists were investigated. RESULTS: Among the 608 respondents who had contacted general practitioners or family doctors for any reason, 153 had contacted them for emotional or mental problems. Of this subgroup of 153, 64.5 percent received mental health services either from these practitioners or by referral to specialists, and 26 percent were referred to mental health specialists. Depressed respondents who reported having talked to a general practitioner or family doctor about mental health problems, who reported impairment, and whose depressive symptoms had lasted eight or more weeks were more likely to have received mental health services. Respondents aged 12 to 24 years were more likely to be referred to mental health specialists. CONCLUSION: S: Impairment associated with depression and chronicity of depressive symptoms appear to be the primary determinants of the decisions made by general practitioners and family doctors about providing mental health services. Patients' willingness to consult with general practitioners or family doctors for mental health problems may also be a key factor, both for effective management of depression in primary care settings and for referral to mental health specialists.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.637
Threshold uncertainty score0.729

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.011
GPT teacher head0.324
Teacher spread0.313 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations37
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatric ServicesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207