Age, Period, and Cohort Effects in Psychological Distress in the United States and Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although treatment utilization for depression and anxiety symptoms has increased substantially in the United States and elsewhere, it remains unclear whether the underlying population distribution of psychological distress is changing over time. We estimated age, period, and cohort effects using data from 2 countries over more than 20 years, including National Health Interview Surveys from 1997 to 2010 (n = 447,058) and Canadian Community Health Surveys from 2000 to 2007 (n = 125,306). Psychological distress was measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. By period, both countries showed the highest levels of psychological distress in 2001 and the lowest levels in 2007. By age, psychological distress was highest in adolescence and during the late 40s and early 50s. By cohort, Canadian Community Health Survey results indicated a decreasing cohort effect among those born in 1922-1925 through 1935-1939 (β = -0.36, 95% confidence interval: -0.45, -0.27) and then a continuously increasing cohort effect during the remainder of the 20th century through 1989-1992 (β = 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.38, 0.61). The National Health Interview Survey data captured earlier-born cohorts and indicated an increased cohort effect for the earliest born (for 1912-1914, β = 0.44, 95% confidence interval: 0.26, 0.61). In sum, individuals in the oldest and more recently born birth cohorts have higher mean psychological distress symptoms compared with those born in midcentury, underscoring the importance of a broad, population-level lens for conceptualizing mental health.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".