Better Doctor-Patient Relationships Are Associated with Men Choosing More Active Depression Treatment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Men tend to have low rates of treatment uptake for depression. The quality of the relationship with their family physician may be a factor influencing attitudes toward treatment. The present study was developed to explore this issue in a nationally representative sample of Canadian men. Methods: An online survey of 1000 Canadian men was conducted to inquire about men9s relationship with their family physician and hypothetical treatment choices for depression. Main analyses were conducted among 819 men who indicated having a regular primary care physician. Results: Two thirds of men with a family physician (n = 534; 65%) indicated they would pursue treatment if they were suffering from depression. Multinomial logistic regression, controlling for age, employment, education level, and current depressive symptoms indicated that positive perceptions of the patient-doctor relationship were associated with men being more likely to opt for pharmacotherapy (n = 183; odds ratio [OR], 1.06; P < .001), and individual psychotherapy (n = 277; OR, 1.04; P < .001), compared with a wait-and-see/no treatment approach (n = 285). Conclusion: The quality of the doctor-patient relationship is an important element in helping men choose active treatment for depression.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.010 | 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".