293 – The Costs Associated with Antidepressant Use in Depression and Anxiety in Community Living Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the costs associated with antidepressant (AD) use and mental health status. Methods: Data were obtained from a population-based health survey of 2,004 older adults. Depression and anxiety were based on DSM-IV criteria and measured at two time points 1 year apart. AD use and health service use and costs were identified from provincial administrative databases. Patient costs included drug copayments, transportation and time spent seeking medical care. Costs associated with AD use were studied as a function of mental health status at baseline and follow-up interviews [i.e. persistence, incidence, remission, no illness]. Generalized linear models with a gamma distribution (log link) were used to control for potential confounders such as socio-economic and clinical factors and AD adherence rates. Results: The costs incurred by participants using AD (16.6%) reached $6861 (95% CI: $5586, $8426), significantly more than costs for those not using AD: $4662 ($3679, $5908). AD use was associated with increased total adjusted costs in respondents with no depression and anxiety and in respondents with incident anxiety. Increased costs were due to significantly higher hospitalisation and outpatient costs. The results also suggested a negative association between adherence to AD and the persistence of depression. Conclusion: The results did not show important cost savings or decreased health service use associated with AD use and this for all depression and anxiety groups. Future cost studies may consider the analyses of different AD classes with respect to the different clinical mental health profiles in 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.
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) | 0.000 | 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".