Duration between onset and time of obtaining initial treatment among people with anxiety and mood disorders: an international survey of members of mental health patient advocate groups
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Self-report data obtained from members of advocate groups for patients with anxiety or mood disorders in 11 countries were used to study time to initial professional help-seeking after incident episodes. METHOD: Data were taken from 3516 self-administered questionnaires completed by members of GAMIAN, an international consortium of mental health patient advocate groups. Reports about age at onset and age at first seeking treatment were obtained retrospectively. RESULTS: Approximately 40% of respondents reported that they sought treatment in the same year as the first onset of their disorder. The median delay in help-seeking was 8 years for the remainder of respondents. Synthetic cohort analysis suggests that delays have decreased in recent cohorts. However, time to initial help-seeking in all cohorts and all countries was found to be inversely related to age at onset. CONCLUSIONS: Although caution is needed in generalizing the results beyond members of patient advocate groups, the key patterns found here were also found in previous analyses of general population surveys carried out in the US and Canada. The critical and consistent finding in all these studies is that presumably curable adolescents with early-onset disorders are, in effect, ignored by the treatment system in these countries. Aggressive outreach and intervention among early-onset cases might prove to be a cost-effective approach both to prevent the onset of secondary disorders and to improve success in treating primary disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".