Does providing personalized depression risk information lead to increased psychological distress and functional impairment? Results from a mixed-methods randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Multivariable risk algorithms (MVRP) predicting the personal risk of depression will form an important component of personalized preventive interventions. However, it is unknown whether providing personalized depression risk will lead to unintended psychological harms. The objectives of this study were to evaluate the impact of providing personalized depression risk on non-specific psychological distress and functional impairment over 12 months. METHODS: A mixed-methods randomized controlled trial was conducted in 358 males and 354 females who were at high risk of having a major depressive episode according to sex-specific MVRPs, and who were randomly recruited across Canada. Participants were assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: = 1.17, 95% CI 0.12-2.23) at 12 months. Participants in the intervention group also reported significantly less functional impairment in the domains of home and work/school activities, than did those in the control group. A majority of the qualitative interviewees commented that personalized depression risk information does not have a negative impact on physical and mental health. CONCLUSIONS: This study found no evidence that providing personalized depression risk information will lead to worsening psychological distress, functional impairment, and absenteeism. Provision of personalized depression risk information may have positive impacts on non-specific psychological distress and functioning. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02943876.
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 | 0.003 | 0.026 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".