Determinants of follow-up care associated with incident antidepressant use in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To determine the proportion of older adults receiving guideline concordant antidepressant therapy and to determine patient, prescriber and organizational factors associated with adequate antidepressant therapy. METHODS: The study included secondary analyses of data collected in the Étude sur la Santé des Aînés (ESA) Services study on older adults recruited while consulting in primary care clinics in one of the largest health regions of the province of Québec. Antidepressant users (n = 349) were identified from information collected from the Régie de l'Assurance Maladie du Québec (RAMQ) pharmaceutical database which holds information on all drugs dispensed to all residents covered under the public drug plan. Adequacy of antidepressant treatment was measured using three criteria: adequacy of daily dose; length of prescription (≥455 days); and ≥3 visits to the antidepressant-prescribing physician in the first 3 months after initiation of therapy. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were used to study antidepressant treatment adequacy as a function of individual, provider and healthcare system factors. RESULTS: Among the antidepressant users, 44% received an adequate antidepressant treatment filling all three criteria. None of the factors studied were associated with the probability of receiving adequate treatment filling all three criteria. Psychological distress was associated with having an adequate number of visits in the 3 months following initiation. Males and those living in a metropolitan and urban area were less likely to receive an adequate dose. CONCLUSIONS: Future research should consider factors associated with perceived effectiveness and patient treatment preferences that may explain receipt of adequate antidepressant treatment in older adults.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".