Costs associated with mood and anxiety disorders, as evaluated by telephone survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Costing studies are central to health policy decisions. Available costing estimates for mood and anxiety disorders in Canada may, however, be out of date. In this study, we estimated a set of direct health care costs using data collected in a provincial telephone survey of mood and anxiety disorders in Alberta. The survey used random digit dialing to reach a sample of 3394 household residents aged 18 to 64. A telephone interview included items assessing costs without reference to whether these were incurred by the respondent, government or a health plan. The survey interview also included the Mini Neuropsychiatric Diagnostic Interview (MINI). Costs for antidepressant medications appear to have increased since the last available estimates were published. Surprisingly, most medication costs for antidepressants were incurred by respondents without an identified disorder. Also, an unexpectedly large proportion of medication costs were for psychotropic medications other than antidepressants and anxiolytic-sedative-hypnotics. These results suggest that major changes have occurred in the costs associated with antidepressant treatment. Available cost-of-illness data may be outdated, and some assumptions made by previous studies may now be invalid.
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 | 0.002 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".