Primary care and suicidality among psychiatric outpatients: The patient-doctor relationship matters
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The purpose of the current study is to examine the relationship between the quality of the Patient-Doctor Relationship and suicidality among patients seeking mental health care; specifically, whether patients who perceive having a more positive relationship with primary care physician will have lower levels of suicidality. METHOD: Cross-sectional population-based study in Greater Vancouver, Canada. One-hundred ninety-seven participants were recruited from three Mental Health Clinics who reported having a primary care physician. Participants completed a survey containing questions regarding items assessing quality of Patient-Doctor Relationship, general psychiatric distress (K10), borderline personality disorder, and suicidality (Suicidal Behaviours Questionnaire-Revised-SBQ-R). Zero-order correlations were computed to evaluate relationships between study variables. Hierarchical regression analysis was used to control for confounding variables. RESULTS: The quality of the patient doctor relationship was significantly negatively associated with suicidality. The association between the quality of the patient-doctor relationship and suicidality remained significant even after controlling for the effects of psychiatric symptom distress and borderline personality disorder features. CONCLUSIONS: The degree to which patients' perceive their primary care physician as understanding, reliable, and dedicated, is associated with a reduction in suicidal behaviors. Further research is needed to better explicate the mechanisms of this relationship over time.
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 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.006 | 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".