A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Depression among Farming Populations Worldwide
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the overall prevalence of depression among farming populations globally, and explore any heterogeneity present. Eligible studies were primary research articles published in English, which involved the collection of data for the purpose of determining the prevalence of depression among a farming population. Four relevant databases were searched in January 2019. Potential for bias was assessed using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. From 7662 records, 72 articles were deemed relevant and had data extracted. Of these, 45 utilized the Center for Epidemiologic Studies—Depression Revised scale (CES-D/DR) to quantify depression, 42 of which were conducted in the United States (U.S.). As a result, meta-analyses were restricted to this geographic location. Substantial heterogeneity was seen in the initial whole-group analysis (I2 = 97%), and while sub-group exploration suggested a significantly higher prevalence of depression among migrant farm workers (26%, 95% CI = 21–31%) than in studies examining a non-migrant farming population (12%, 95% CI = 8–17%), substantial heterogeneity remained (I2 = 96%), indicating that the majority of between study variation was due to factors other than sampling error. Additionally, the majority of studies (81%) in migrant farm worker populations were published since 2010, while only 21% of studies in non-migrant farming populations were published in this timeframe. It is possible with recent efforts to de-stigmatize mental illness, participants in more recent studies may be more likely to self-report depressive symptoms. Hence, while it appears that migrant farmworker populations may have an elevated prevalence of depression, it is also apparent that little research in the U.S. has been done to evaluate depression among non-migrant farming populations in recent years. Perhaps a reporting bias may account for some of the difference between the two populations. A research gap also appears to exist in estimating the prevalence of depression among farming populations outside of the US. Assessment for bias at the study level revealed challenges in reporting of key study design elements, as well as potential for selection bias in the majority of studies.
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 | 0.018 | 0.041 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.020 | 0.043 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.016 | 0.012 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".