Use of medication and psychological counselling among Canadians with mood and/or anxiety disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study describes the use of prescription medications and psychological counselling in the past 12 months among Canadian adults with a self-reported mood and/or anxiety disorder diagnosis; the sociodemographic and clinical characteristics associated with their use; and reasons for not using them. METHODS: We used data from the 2014 Survey on Living with Chronic Diseases in Canada-Mood and Anxiety Disorders Component. The study sample (n = 2916) was divided into four treatment subgroups: (1) taking medication only; (2) having received counselling only; (3) both; or (4) neither. We combined the first three subgroups and carried out descriptive and multivariate logistic regression analyses comparing those who are taking medication and/or have received counselling in the past 12 months, versus those doing neither. Estimates were weighted to represent the Canadian adult household population living in the 10 provinces with diagnosed mood and/or anxiety disorders. RESULTS: The majority (81.8%) of Canadians with a mood and/or an anxiety disorder diagnosis reported they are taking medications and/or have received counselling (47.6% taking medications only; 6.9% received counselling only; and 27.3% taking/having received both). Upon controlling for individual characteristics, taking medications and/or having received counselling was significantly associated with older age; higher household income; living in the Atlantic region or Quebec versus Ontario; and having concurrent disorders or mood disorders only. Symptoms controlled without medication was the most common reason for not taking medications, while preferring to manage on their own and taking medications were among the common reasons for not having received counselling. CONCLUSION: The majority of Canadian adults with a mood and/or an anxiety disorder diagnosis are taking medications, while few have received counselling. Insights gained regarding the factors associated with these treatments, and reasons for not using them, emphasize the importance of discussing treatment options and perceived barriers with patients to ensure they receive the best treatment according to their needs and preference.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| 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".