MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2327211200 · doi:10.1177/0706743716640288

How Often Do Individuals with Major Depression Receive Minimally Adequate Treatment? A Population-Based, Data Linkage Study

2016· article· en· W2327211200 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Joseph H. Puyat, Arminée Kazanjian, Elliot M. Goldner, Hubert Wong

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Canadian Journal of Psychiatry · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser UniversityUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineDepression (economics)Logistic regressionPopulationMental healthPsychiatryReceiptInternal medicineEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: Depression is usually treated with antidepressants, psychotherapy, or both. In this study, we examined the extent to which individuals with depression receive minimally adequate treatment with regard to the use of antidepressants and psychotherapy. Method: Using population-based administrative data, we identified individuals with inpatient or outpatient diagnoses of depression and tracked their use of publicly funded mental health services within a 12-month period. We used mixed-effects logistic regression to assess the influence of patient-level characteristics and physician-level variations on the receipt of minimally adequate treatment. Results: A total of 108 101 individuals, predominantly women (65%) and urban residents (89%), were diagnosed with depression in 2010–2011. Of these, 13% received minimally adequate counseling/psychotherapy with higher proportions observed among men, younger individuals, and urban residents. In contrast, there were more who received minimally adequate antidepressant therapy (48%), with women, older individuals, and rural residents having the highest proportions. Overall, about 53% received either type of treatment, and the pattern of use was similar to that of antidepressant therapy. Mixed-effects logistic regression results indicate that these factors remain independent predictors of the receipt of minimally adequate depression care. Significant practice variations also exist, which determine patients’ receipt of minimally adequate care, particularly with respect to counseling or psychotherapy. Conclusions: Only about half of those with depression receive either minimally adequate counseling/psychotherapy or minimally adequate antidepressant therapy. Disparities also persist, affecting mostly men and younger individuals. A multifactorial approach is needed to improve access to and reduce variations in receipt of minimally adequate depression care.

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)0.012
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.042
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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.062

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0120.042
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0020.006
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0020.002
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations69
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Canadian Journal of PsychiatrySame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207