The Balkan region preferences for the treatment of anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most countries from West Balkan region do not have the official guidelines for the treatment of patients with anxiety disorders (AD). We have done the survey on preferences of treatment of patients with AD. We have collected data from sample of 221 psychiatrists from Croatia (41 psychiatrists), Macedonia (81 psychiatrists) and Serbia (99 psychiatrists). They give as information about their preferences for treating patients with AD. The results indicate that the vast majority of psychiatrists report that almost all patients with AD receive benzodiazepines prior to first psychiatric visit. The majority of psychiatrist would opt for SSRI/SNRI antidepressants (91–97%) as the monotherapy or in combination with benzodiazepines (53–59%) or in combination with cognitive-behavior (25–35%) or psychodynamic psychotherapy (12–16%). The most indicative difference between psychiatrists from different countries is result about the use of pregabalin – almost half of Serbian subsample would opt for pregabalin, but only a quarter of Croatian subsample and no psychiatrist from Macedonian subsample would choose pregabalin. Also, much more Macedonian and Serbian psychiatrist would opt for CBT treatment, but, in contrast, much more Croatian psychiatrist would opt for psychodynamic psychotherapy versus CBT. There is the dissimilarity between preferences for patients’ treatment and preferences for psychiatrists himself/herself treatment: – more than half of the sample would opt for benzodiazepines in their patients but only the third of the sample would prefer benzodiazepines for himself/herself treatment; – more psychiatrists would prefer to receive psychotherapy treatment than they would prefer to give it to their patients. Disclosure of interest The authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.001 |
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".