MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2305743056 · doi:10.1177/0706743716632514

Characterization of Disability in Canadians with Mental Disorders Using an Abbreviated Version of a <i>DSM-5</i> Emerging Measure: The 12-Item WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS) 2.0

2016· article· en· W2305743056 on OpenAlexafffundvenueabout
Kirsten Sjonnesen, Andrew G. M. Bulloch, Jeanne V.A. Williams, Dina H. Lavorato, Scott B. Patten

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSchizophrenia research and treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryUniversity of Alberta
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychiatryMental healthGlobal Assessment of FunctioningSchedule for Affective Disorders and SchizophreniaSchizophrenia (object-oriented programming)PsychologyPopulationClinical psychologyAnxietySubstance abuseMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: The World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 (WHODAS 2.0) is a disability scale included in Section 3 of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5) as a possible replacement for the Global Assessment of Functioning Scale (GAF). To assist Canadian psychiatrists with interpretation of the scale, we have conducted a descriptive analysis using data from the 2012 Canadian Community Health Survey-Mental Health component (CCHS-MH). METHODS: The 2012 CCHS-MH was a cross-sectional survey of the Canadian community (n = 23,757). The survey included an abbreviated 12-item version of the WHODAS 2.0. Mental disorder diagnoses were assessed for schizophrenia, other psychosis, major depressive episode (MDE), generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), bipolar I disorder, substance abuse/dependence, and alcohol abuse/dependence. RESULTS: Mean scores ranged from 14.2 (95% CI, 14.1 to 14.3) for the overall community population to 23.1 (95% CI, 19.5 to 26.7) for those with schizophrenia, with higher scores indicating greater disability. Furthermore, the difference in scores between those with lifetime and past-month episodes suggests that the scale is sensitive to changes occurring during the course of these disorders; for example, scores varied from 23.6 (95% CI, 22.2 to 25.1) for past-month MDE to 14.4 (95% CI, 14.2 to 14.7) in the lifetime MDE group without a past-year episode. CONCLUSION: This analysis suggests that the WHODAS 2.0 may be a suitable replacement for the GAF. As a disability measure, even though it is not a mental health-specific instrument, the 12-item WHODAS 2.0 appears to be sensitive to the impact of mental disorders and to changes over the time course of a mental disorder. However, the clinical utility of this measure requires additional assessment.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.017
Threshold uncertainty score0.107

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0030.004
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.018
GPT teacher head0.284
Teacher spread0.266 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations51
Published2016
Admission routes4
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicSchizophrenia research and treatmentFrench-language works237,207