Perceived helpfulness of bipolar disorder treatment: Findings from the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine patterns and predictors of perceived treatment helpfulness for mania/hypomania and associated depression in the WHO World Mental Health Surveys. METHODS: Face-to-face interviews with community samples across 15 countries found n = 2,178 who received lifetime mania/hypomania treatment and n = 624 with lifetime mania/hypomania who received lifetime major depression treatment. These respondents were asked whether treatment was ever helpful and, if so, the number of professionals seen before receiving helpful treatment. Patterns and predictors of treatment helpfulness were examined separately for mania/hypomania and depression. RESULTS: 63.1% (mania/hypomania) and 65.1% (depression) of patients reported ever receiving helpful treatment. However, only 24.5-22.5% were helped by the first professional seen, which means that the others needed to persist in help seeking after initial unhelpful treatments in order to find helpful treatment. Projections find only 22.9% (mania/hypomania) and 43.3% (depression) would persist through a series of unhelpful treatments but that the proportion helped would increase substantially if persistence increased. Few patient-level significant predictors of helpful treatment emerged and none consistently either across the two components (i.e., provider-level helpfulness and persistence after earlier unhelpful treatment) or for both mania/hypomania and depression. Although prevalence of treatment was higher in high-income than low/middle-income countries, proportional helpfulness among treated cases was nearly identical in the two groups of countries. CONCLUSIONS: Probability of patients with mania/hypomania and associated depression obtaining helpful treatment might increase substantially if persistence in help-seeking increased after initially unhelpful treatments, although this could require seeing numerous additional treatment providers. In addition to investigating reasons for initial treatments not being helpful, messages reinforcing the importance of persistence should be emphasized to patients.
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 | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.001 | 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 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".