Treatment and follow-up of anxiety and depression in clinical-scenario patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore family physicians’ recommendations for treatment of, and number of weeks to first follow-up visit for, clinical-scenario patients presenting with symptoms of either a major depressive episode (MDE) or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), as well as physicians’ perceived barriers to optimal care for these patients. Design Cross-sectional survey. Setting Saskatchewan. Participants A total of 331 family physicians practising in Saskatchewan as of December 2007. Main outcome measures Type of treatment and number of weeks to first follow-up visit recommended for clinical-scenario patients, as well as family physicians’ barriers to providing optimal care. Results The response rate was 49.7% (331 of 666 surveys returned). Most physicians recommended treatment of the GAD-scenario patient (93.7%) and the MDE-scenario patient (90.1%). Most physicians recommended immediate (65.6%) rather than delayed (28.1%) treatment of the GAD-scenario patient, and immediate (55.6%) rather than delayed (34.5%) treatment of the MDE-scenario patient. Pharmacotherapy alone (26.3%) was the most commonly recommended immediate treatment of the GAD-scenario patient; combination pharmacotherapy and counseling (15.8%) was the most commonly recommended immediate treatment of the MDE-scenario patient. Most physicians recommended that the first follow-up visit occur within 2 weeks for the GAD (79.4%) and the MDE (82.5%) clinical-scenario patients. Physicians were more likely to identify themselves rather than patients and the health care system as barriers to providing optimal care to the GAD (39.4%) and the MDE (39.8%) clinical-scenario patients. Conclusion Most family physicians recommend immediate treatment and early follow-up for patients presenting with symptoms of GAD or MDE. Physician-related barriers outweigh patient and health system barriers to providing optimal care to patients with common psychiatric 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 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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) | 0.003 | 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".