MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4295441318 · doi:10.1186/s12991-022-00414-1

What is the global prevalence of depression among men who have sex with men? A systematic review and meta-analysis

2022· review· en· W4295441318 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

aboutThe title or abstract carries a Canadian signal from the geographic lexicon.
no affNo Canadian affiliation: this work is invisible to an affiliation-only frame.
No Canadian affiliation. An affiliation-only frame, the usual design, would never have seen this work. It is one of the works that make the case for inverting the frame.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnnals of General Psychiatry · 2022
Typereview
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicHIV/AIDS Research and Interventions
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMeta-analysisChecklistMedicineInclusion and exclusion criteriaPopulationDepression (economics)Systematic reviewMEDLINEDemographyClinical psychologyPsychiatryPsychologyInternal medicineEnvironmental healthAlternative medicinePathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Depression due to stigma resulting from their sexual identity, isolation, social exclusion, and insufficient access to care and counseling services has become a health problem among men who have sex with men (MSM). OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to determine the global prevalence of depression among MSM as a systematic review and meta-analysis. METHODS: This study was a systematic review and meta-analysis performed in five steps of search strategy, screening and selecting articles, data extraction, evaluation of the risk of bias, and meta-analysis. In this study, the determined keywords were searched in the databases of PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and Web of Science from January 1913 to July 2021 to find the initial articles, from which data were extracted according to the set checklist in the data extraction stage. Finally, the studies were included in the present meta-analysis according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria, to be evaluated using the Newcastle Ottawa scale checklist. I Square and Q Cochrane were also used to assess the degree of heterogeneity. The analyses were performed using the random-effects model in STATA 16. RESULTS: The results showed the quality score of the majority of cross-sectional studies included in the meta-analysis (62 studies) was equal to six or seven (moderate), and five ones had a high-quality score. After combining these studies, the pooled prevalence of depression among MSM in the world was 35% (95% CI 31%-39%, I square; 98.95%, P-value < 0.001). Population subgroup analysis showed the pooled prevalence of depression among MSM living with HIV was 47% (95% CI 39%-55%, I square; 95.76%, P-value < 0.001). Continent subgroup analysis showed the highest pooled prevalence of depression among Asian MSM at 37% (95% CI 31%-43%, I square; 99.07%, P-value < 0.001). Also, in the subgroup analysis of the sampling method, the pooled prevalence in the studies which used the respondent-driven sampling method was equal to 34% (95% CI 25%-43%, I square; 99.32%, P-value < 0.001). Sensitivity analysis revealed the pooled prevalence of depression in studies included in the meta-analysis was near or around the pooled estimate. CONCLUSION: The pooled prevalence of depression among MSM was almost three times higher than the general male population. Therefore, particular and therapeutic interventions such as screening, and harm reduction programs for mental disorders, especially depression, are suggested to be considered in service packages.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.725
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0060.003
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.109
GPT teacher head0.434
Teacher spread0.325 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it