The prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders in indigenous people of the Americas: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Indigenous populations are considered at higher risk of psychiatric disorder but many studies do not include direct comparisons with similar non-Indigenous controls. We undertook a meta-analysis of studies that compared the prevalence of depression and anxiety disorders in Indigenous populations in the Americas with those of non-Indigenous groups with similar socio-demographic features (Registration number: CRD42015025854). A systematic search of PubMed, Medline, PsycInfo, PsycArticles, ScienceDirect, EMBASE, and article bibliographies was performed. We included comparisons of lifetime rates and prevalence of up to 12 months. We found 19 studies (n = 250, 959) from Latin America, Canada and the US. There were no differences between Indigenous and similar non-Indigenous groups in the 12-month prevalence of depressive, generalised anxiety and panic disorders. However, Indigenous people were at greater risk of PTSD. For lifetime prevalence, rates of generalised anxiety, panic and all the depressive disorders were significantly lower in Indigenous participants, whilst PTSD (on adjusted analyses) and social phobia were significantly higher. Results were similar for sub-analyses of Latin America, Canada and the US, and sensitivity analyses by study quality or setting (e.g. health, community etc.). Risk factors for psychiatric illness may therefore be a complex interaction of biological, educational, economic and socio-cultural factors that may vary between disorders. Accordingly, interventions should reflect that the association between disadvantage and psychiatric illness is rarely due to one factor. However, it is also possible that assessment tools don't accurately measure psychiatric symptoms in Indigenous populations and that further cross-cultural validation of diagnostic instruments may be needed too.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.006 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it