Minimally Adequate Mental Health Treatment and Mortality in Primary Care Older Adults With Depression and Anxiety
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Receipt of quality mental health (MH) care can influence mortality. Given the scarce literature on the topic, the aim was to assess the 3-year risk of mortality in older adults (OA) associated with receiving adequate MH treatment for depression/anxiety in an epidemiologic context. The study sample included 358 OA with depression/anxiety recruited in primary care practices and followed prospectively for 3 years. Mortality was assessed from vital statistics data. Adequate care was based on receipt of pharmacotherapy, follow-up care and psychotherapy. Propensity score analysis was carried out where the inverse probability (IPW) of receiving adequate treatment was calculated. Time to event analyses with IPW was used to assess the effect of receipt of adequate MH treatment on the risk of mortality controlling for individual and health system factors. The results showed that receipt of adequate MH treatment reduced the risk of mortality (HR0.44; 95% CI: 0.22 – 0.99). Individual factors that increased mortality were male sex, being single, reduced functional status and cognitive functioning, # physical disorders, current smoking; while exercise reduced risk. Health system factors such as past # of hospitalizations increased the risk; while # of emergency department visits and continuity of care reduced mortality. Finally, treating depression/anxiety with minimal follow-up care and pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy has a significant impact on reducing mortality in OA. Primary care physicians should recognize the important potential impact of years of lives saved when providing quality MH care to OA.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".