Minimally Adequate Treatment for Depression and Anxiety Associated With Mortality in Primary Care Older Adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To assess the association between receipt of minimally adequate treatment (MAT) and mortality in a sample of community primary care older adults with depression and anxiety. Method The present study was conducted among a sample of 358 older adults ( ≥ 65 years old) with depression or an anxiety disorder recruited in primary care practices between 2011 and 2013. Participants agreed to link their health survey and administrative data for the 3 years preceding and following the baseline interview. Depression and anxiety disorders were based on self-reported symptoms aligned with DSM-5 criteria and physician diagnoses (International Classification of Diseases [ICD], 9 th and 10 th revisions). MAT was defined according to Canadian guidelines and include receipt of pharmacotherapy and ≥ 4 medical visits within 3 months or a number of psychotherapy sessions (individual, group, or family) over 12 months (depression: ≥8; anxiety disorders: ≥5 to 7). All-cause 3-year mortality was ascertained from the vital statistics death registry in Québec. Propensity score weighted regression analysis was conducted to assess the association between receipt of MAT and mortality adjusting for individual, clinical, and health system study factors. Results Receipt of MAT was associated with a reduced risk of mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.27; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.12 to 0.62). Individual and clinical factors associated with increased mortality included older age, male sex, being single, low functional status, and increased physical disorders and cognitive functioning. Lifestyle factors associated with reduced and increased mortality included alcohol consumption and smoking, respectively. Health system factors such as perceived adequate number of visits to speak to the doctor about emotional problems and continuity of care were associated with reduced mortality. Conclusion The current study highlights the important role of primary care physicians in detecting and providing MAT for older adults with depression and anxiety, as this may have an effect on longevity.
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 | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".