Utilization of mental health care services among older adults with depression
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the availability of effective treatments for late life depression, data indicate that only a small minority of adults over the age of 65 years with depression access any kind of care for emotional or mental health problems. Using data from the Canadian Community Health Survey (Cycle 1.1), we compared patterns of mental health service utilization among middle-aged (45-64 years), younger old (65-74 years), and older old (75 years and older) adults with and without depression and identified predictors associated with accessing different services (n=59,302). Compared to middle-aged adults with depression, individuals aged 65 and older with depression were less likely to report any mental health consultation in the past year and especially unlikely to report consulting with professionals other than a family physician. Age remained a significant predictor of mental health service utilization even after accounting for other relevant variables such as gender, marital status, years of education, depression caseness, and number of chronic medical conditions. Although the prevalence of depression is lower in older age groups, the present study provides compelling evidence that mental health services are particularly underutilized by depressed older adults.
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.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it