The impact of providing personalized depression risk information on self‐help and help‐seeking behaviors: Results from a mixed methods randomized controlled trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of providing personalized depression risk information on self-help and help-seeking behaviors among individuals who are at high risk of having a major depressive episode (MDE). MATERIALS AND METHODS: In a mixed methods randomized controlled trial, participants who were at high risk of having a MDE, were recruited from across Canada, and were randomized into intervention (n = 358) and control (n = 354) groups. Participants in the intervention group received their personalized depression risk estimated by sex-specific risk prediction models for MDE. All participants were assessed at baseline, 6 and 12 months. RESULTS: Repeated measure mixed effects modeling showed significant between group differences in self-help scores. In the complete case analysis, the between group difference in mean self-help change score was 1.13 at 12 months (effect size = 0.16). Among participants who reported "fair" or "poor health," the between group difference in mean self-help change score was 2.78 at 12 months (effect size = 0.35). The qualitative data revealed three themes and the findings are consistent with the quantitative results. CONCLUSIONS: Providing personalized depression risk information has a positive impact on self-help in high-risk individuals, particularly in those with poor health.
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 | 0.009 | 0.019 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.001 |
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".