MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2954000554 · doi:10.3138/jmvfh.2018-0006

Depression prevalence and geographic distribution in United States military women: results from the 2017 Service Women’s Action Network needs assessment

2019· article· en· W2954000554 on OpenAlex

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.

venuePublished in a venue whose home country is Canada.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Military Veteran and Family Health · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicEducation and Military Integration
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBehavioral Risk Factor Surveillance SystemMental healthMedicineRuralityEthnic groupMilitary serviceLogistic regressionDemographyDepression (economics)GerontologySocioeconomic statusEnvironmental healthGeographyPopulationPsychiatryRural area

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Introduction:To better understand depression in United States (US) servicewomen, needs assessment data from the Service Women’s Action Network (SWAN) were collected and analyzed, with comparison samples drawn from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System (BRFSS). The purpose of the present study was threefold. First, an assessment of the spatial distribution of depression in the United States among military women was made using geographic information systems. Second, the authors sought to determine differences in the prevalence of undiagnosed mental health concerns and diagnosed depression in women by military service status. Third, the authors sought to identify risk factors for depression among military women. Methods: Frequencies and percentages for all demographic, geographic, and outcome variables were calculated by military service status and data source. Differences among three groups – non-Veteran respondents of the BRFSS, Veteran respondents of the BRFSS, and SWAN member Veterans – were analyzed with the Chi-square test of independence. Estimates of the state-level prevalence of undiagnosed mental health concerns and diagnosed depression among military women who responded to either the 2016 BRFSS or the 2017 SWAN needs assessment were calculated and represented with state-boundary choropleth maps in Quantum GIS (QGIS). Results: A multinomial logistic regression model, adjusted for educational attainment, race, ethnicity, employment status, US region, and rurality, showed that military women and women Veterans were more likely to have undiagnosed mental health concerns and diagnosed depression, χ 2 28 = 4,891.91, p < 0.001, Nagelkerke’s R 2 = 0.03. Spatial analysis indicated that respondents living in the South were more likely to have diagnosed depression or undiagnosed mental health symptoms in both the BRFSS and SWAN needs assessment samples. Discussion: Primary findings from this study suggest that given the regional variation in depression among women Veterans, future studies should work to examine the role of the region in mental health for servicewomen in the United States, looking at available services and cultural differences. Recommendations include targeted programming for women Veterans.

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 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)0.004
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 score0.293
Threshold uncertainty score0.964

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.306 · 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