Better Doctor-Patient Relationships Are Associated with Men Choosing More Active Depression Treatment
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<h3>Background:</h3> 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. <h3>Methods:</h3> 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. <h3>Results:</h3> 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; <i>P</i> < .001), and individual psychotherapy (n = 277; OR, 1.04; <i>P</i> < .001), compared with a wait-and-see/no treatment approach (n = 285). <h3>Conclusion:</h3> 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.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it