MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2886260183 · doi:10.1002/hpm.2581

Prevalence, awareness, and treatment of depressive symptoms among the middle‐aged and elderly in China from 2008 to 2015

2018· article· en· W2886260183 on OpenAlexaff
Qun Wang, Wenyao Tian

Bibliographic record

VenueThe International Journal of Health Planning and Management · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and Caregiving
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Ottawa
FundersFundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities
KeywordsChinaDepression (economics)Government (linguistics)Depressive symptomsMedicineDescriptive statisticsLongitudinal studyPsychiatryCognitionGeography

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: This study aimed at exploring the temporal trend of prevalence, awareness, and treatment of depressive symptoms among the middle-aged and elderly in China from 2008 to 2015, as well as depicting how many respondents suffered from persistent depression, whether they were aware of and how they coped with such persistent conditions over time. METHODS: This study used the 2008, 2011, 2012, 2013, and 2015 data of China Health and Retirement Longitudinal Study. We used descriptive statistics for data analysis. RESULTS: The prevalence of depressive symptoms among the middle-aged and elderly in China remained relatively stable at 32% to 37% from 2008 to 2015. Only less than 5% of those with depressive symptoms were aware of their conditions and less than 2% sought care over time. We also observed that persistent depression was very severe among the respondents and most of those with persistent conditions were still not aware of nor seek any care for the symptoms. CONCLUSION: Despite of the continuous efforts done by the Chinese government, depression in China is still in poor management. The Chinese government needs to first understand why and how the continuous government efforts do not turn into actual effects of depression management.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.176
Threshold uncertainty score0.626

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.025
GPT teacher head0.331
Teacher spread0.307 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations39
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe International Journal of Health Planning and ManagementSame topicIntergenerational Family Dynamics and CaregivingFrench-language works237,207