Health status, activity limitations, work-related restrictionsand level of disability among Canadians with mood and/oranxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study provides the first overview of the perceived general and mental health, activity limitations, work-related restrictions and level of disability, as well as factors associated with disability severity, among Canadian adults with mood and/or anxiety disorders, using a population-based household sample. METHODS: We used data from the 2014 Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada- Mood and Anxiety Disorders Component. The sample consists of Canadians aged 18 years and older with self-reported mood and/or anxiety disorders from the 10 provinces (n = 3361; response rate 68.9%). We conducted descriptive and multinomial multivariate logistic regression analyses. RESULTS: Among Canadian adults with mood and/or anxiety disorders, over one-quarter reported "fair/poor" general (25.3%) and mental (26.1%) health; more than one-third (36.4%) reported one or more activity limitations; half (50.3%) stated a job modification was required to continue working; and more than one-third (36.5%) had severe disability. Those with concurrent mood and anxiety disorders reported poorer outcomes: 56.4% had one or more activity limitations; 65.8% required a job modification and 49.6% were severely disabled. Upon adjusting for individual characteristics, those with mood and/or anxiety disorders who were older, who had a household income in the lowest or lower-middle adequacy quintile or who had concurrent disorders were more likely to have severe disability. CONCLUSION: Findings from this study affirm that mood and/or anxiety disorders, especially concurrent disorders, are associated with negative physical and mental health outcomes. Results support the role of public health policy and programs aimed at improving the lives of people living with these disorders, in particular those with concurrent disorders.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".