Increased incident rates of antidepressant use during the COVID-19 pandemic: interrupted time-series analysis of a nationally representative sample
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Background The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with increased levels of depression and anxiety with implications for the use of antidepressant medications. Methods The incident rate of antidepressant fills before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were compared using interrupted time-series analysis followed by comprehensive sensitivity analyses on data derived from electronic medical records from a large health management organization providing nationwide services to 14% of the Israeli population. The dataset covered the period from 1 January 2013 to 1 February 2021, with 1 March 2020 onwards defined as the period of the COVID-19 pandemic. Forecasting analysis was implemented to test the effect of the vaccine roll-out and easing of social restrictions on antidepressant use. Results The sample consisted of 852 233 persons with a total antidepressant incident fill count of 139 535.4 (total cumulative rate per 100 000 = 16 372.91, 95% CI 16 287.19–16 459.01). We calculated the proportion of antidepressant prescription fills for the COVID-19 period, and the counterfactual proportion for the same period, assuming COVID-19 had not occurred. The difference in these proportions was significant [Cohen's h = 10 −3 (0.16), 95% CI 10 −3 ( − 0.71 to 1.03)]. The pandemic was associated with a significant increase in the slope of the incident rate of antidepressant fills (slope change = 0.01, 95% CI 0.00–0.03; p = 0.04) and a monthly increase of 2% compared to the counterfactual (the estimated rate assuming no pandemic occurred). The increased rate was more pronounced in women, and was not modified by lockdown on/off periods, socioeconomic or SARS-CoV-2 status. The rate of observed antidepressant fills was similar to that forecasted under the assumption of ongoing COVID-19 distress. Conclusion These findings underscore the toll of the pandemic on mental health and inform mental health policy and service delivery during and after implementing COVID-19 attenuation strategies.
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 | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 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".