Economic and humanistic burden associated with noncommunicable diseases among adults with depression and anxiety in the United States
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Aims: This study estimated the economic and humanistic burden associated with chronic non-communicable diseases (NCCDs) among adults with comorbid major depressive and/or any anxiety disorders (MDD and/or AAD).Materials and methods: A retrospective analysis was conducted using the Medical Expenditure Panel Survey data (2010–2015). The analytic cohort included adults (≥18 years) with MDD only (C1), AAD only (C2), or both (C3). The presence of either of 6 NCCDs (cardiovascular diseases [CVD], pulmonary disorders [PD], pain, high cholesterol, diabetes, and obesity) were assessed. Study outcomes included healthcare costs, activity limitations, and quality of life. Multivariate regressions were conducted in each of the 3 cohorts to evaluate the association between the presence of NCCDs and outcomes.Results: The analytic sample included 9,160,465 patients: C1 (4,391,738), C2 (3,648,436), C3 (1,120,292). Pain (59%) was the most common condition, followed by CVD (55%), high cholesterol (50%), obesity (42%), PD (17%), and diabetes (14%). Mean annual healthcare costs were the greatest for C3 ($14,317), followed by C1 ($10,490) and C2 ($7,906). For C1, CVD was associated with the highest increment in annual costs ($3,966) followed by pain ($3,617). For C2, diabetes was associated with the highest incremental annual costs ($4,281) followed by PD ($2,997). For C3, cost trends were similar to those seen in C2. NCCDs resulted in a significant decrease in physical quality of life across all cohorts. Pain was associated with a significantly higher likelihood of self-reported physical, social, cognitive, and activity limitations compared to those without pain.Conclusions: 60% of patients with MDD and/or AAD had at least one additional NCCD, which significantly increased the economic and humanistic burden. These findings are important for payers and clinicians in making treatment decisions. These results underscore the need for development of multi-pronged interventions which aim to improve quality of life and reduce activity limitations among patients with mental health disorders and NCCDs.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".