Treatment adequacy for social anxiety disorder in primary care patients
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: There is a gap between clinical practice guidelines for social anxiety disorder and clinical practice that needs to be addressed to ensure the delivery of evidence-based treatments. The objectives of this study were: 1) to describe mental health service utilization in a cohort of primary care patients with social anxiety disorder; 2) to examine treatment adequacy for pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy according to indicators based on clinical practice guidelines; and 3) to explore correlates of treatment adequacy. METHOD: The "Dialogue" project (Quebec, Canada) is a large study conducted in 67 primary care clinics. After a mental health screening in primary care (n = 14 833), participants with anxiety or depressive symptoms took part in a telephone/web structured interview on mental health symptoms and service utilization (n = 1956). This study included 289 participants meeting DSM-IV criteria for social anxiety disorder. RESULTS: Overall, 86.2% of participants reported consulting for mental health reasons over the past 12 months. Only 23.6% of our sample reported the detection of social anxiety disorder by a healthcare professional in the past 12 months. Approximately 2 in 5 respondents with social anxiety disorder reported receiving pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy meeting our treatment adequacy indicators. Antidepressant medication was the most common treatment. Logistic regression models showed that the detection of major depression (OR = 4.651; 95% CI: 2.559-8.453) or other anxiety disorder(s) (OR = 2.957; 95% CI: 1.555-5.625) were associated with receiving any adequate treatment, but the detection of social anxiety disorder itself was not (OR = 1.420; 95% CI: 0.696-2.899). CONCLUSION: Low rates of detection and treatment adequacy based on our indicators demonstrate that efforts must be made to ensure the quality of care for individuals with social anxiety disorder in primary care.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".