MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3192072536 · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0255594

Primary care-based screening and management of depression amongst heavy drinking patients: Interim secondary outcomes of a three-country quasi-experimental study in Latin America

2021· article· en· W3192072536 on OpenAlexaff
Amy O’Donnell, Bernd Schulte, Jakob Manthey, Christiane Sybille Schmidt, Marina Piazza, Inés Bustamante, Guillermina Natera Rey, Natalia Bautista Aguilar, Graciela Yazmín Sánchez Hernández, Juliana Mejía‐Trujillo, Augusto Pérez‐Gómez, Antoni Gual, Hein de Vries, Adriana Solovei, Daša Kokole, Eileen Kaner, Carolin Kilian, Jürgen Rehm, Peter Anderson, Eva Jané‐Llopis

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS ONE · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Canadian institutionsMental Health Research CanadaPublic Health OntarioUniversity of Toronto
FundersMedical Research CouncilHorizon 2020 Framework Programme
KeywordsDepression (economics)MedicineInterimPatient Health QuestionnaireRandomized controlled trialHealth careFamily medicinePsychiatryInternal medicineAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

INTRODUCTION: Implementation of evidence-based care for heavy drinking and depression remains low in global health systems. We tested the impact of providing community support, training, and clinical packages of varied intensity on depression screening and management for heavy drinking patients in Latin American primary healthcare. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Quasi-experimental study involving 58 primary healthcare units in Colombia, Mexico and Peru randomized to receive: (1) usual care (control); (2) training using a brief clinical package; (3) community support plus training using a brief clinical package; (4) community support plus training using a standard clinical package. Outcomes were proportion of: (1) heavy drinking patients screened for depression; (2) screen-positive patients receiving appropriate support; (3) all consulting patients screened for depression, irrespective of drinking status. RESULTS: 550/615 identified heavy drinkers were screened for depression (89.4%). 147/230 patients screening positive for depression received appropriate support (64%). Amongst identified heavy drinkers, adjusting for country, sex, age and provider profession, provision of community support and training had no impact on depression activity rates. Intensity of clinical package also did not affect delivery rates, with comparable performance for brief and standard versions. However, amongst all consulting patients, training providers resulted in significantly higher rates of alcohol measurement and in turn higher depression screening rates; 2.7 times higher compared to those not trained. CONCLUSIONS: Training using a brief clinical package increased depression screening rates in Latin American primary healthcare. It is not possible to determine the effectiveness of community support on depression activity rates due to the impact of COVID-19.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.006
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Non-randomized trial · Consensus signal: Non-randomized trial
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.016
Threshold uncertainty score0.032

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0060.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.002
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0020.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.268
Teacher spread0.234 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNon-randomized trial
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS ONE→Same topicSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes→French-language works237,207→