Examining Anxiety Treatment Information Needs: Web-Based Survey Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Several treatments for anxiety are available, which can make treatment decisions difficult. Resources are often produced with limited knowledge of what information is of interest to consumers. This is a problem because there is limited understanding of what people want to know when considering help for anxiety. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to examine the information needs and preferences concerning treatment options for anxiety by assessing the following: what information people consider to be important when they are considering treatment options for anxiety, what information people have received on psychological and medication treatment in the past, how they received this information in the past, and whether there are any differences in information needs between specific samples and demographic groups. METHODS: Using a web-based survey, we recruited participants from a peer-support association website (n=288) and clinic samples (psychology, n=113; psychiatry, n=64). RESULTS: Participants in all samples wanted information on a broad range of topics pertaining to anxiety treatment. However, they reported that they did not receive the desired amount of information. Participants in the clinic samples rated the importance of information topics higher than did those in the self-help sample. When considering the anxiety treatment information received in the past, most respondents indicated receiving information from informational websites, family doctors, and mental health practitioners. In terms of what respondents want to learn about, high ratings of importance were given to topics concerning treatment effectiveness, how it works, advantages and disadvantages, what happens when it stops, and common side effects. CONCLUSIONS: It is challenging for individuals to obtain anxiety-related information on the range of topics they desire through currently available information sources. It is also difficult to provide comprehensive information during typical clinical visits. Providing evidence-based information on the web and in a brochure format may help consumers make informed choices and support the advice provided by health professionals.
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 | 0.004 | 0.012 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".