Perceived helpfulness of treatment for social anxiety disorder: findings from the WHO World Mental Health Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the prevalence and predictors of perceived helpfulness of treatment in persons with a history of DSM-IV social anxiety disorder (SAD), using a worldwide population-based sample. METHODS: The World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys is a coordinated series of community epidemiological surveys of non-institutionalized adults; 27 surveys in 24 countries (16 in high-income; 11 in low/middle-income countries; N = 117,856) included people with a lifetime history of treated SAD. RESULTS: In respondents with lifetime SAD, approximately one in five ever obtained treatment. Among these (n = 1322), cumulative probability of receiving treatment they regarded as helpful after seeing up to seven professionals was 92.2%. However, only 30.2% persisted this long, resulting in 65.1% ever receiving treatment perceived as helpful. Perceiving treatment as helpful was more common in female respondents, those currently married, more highly educated, and treated in non-formal health-care settings. Persistence in seeking treatment for SAD was higher among those with shorter delays in seeking treatment, in those receiving medication from a mental health specialist, and those with more than two lifetime anxiety disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The vast majority of individuals with SAD do not receive any treatment. Among those who do, the probability that people treated for SAD obtain treatment they consider helpful increases considerably if they persisted in help-seeking after earlier unhelpful treatments.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 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".