MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4307384521 · doi:10.1093/eurpub/ckac129.613

Evaluating Mood and Anxiety Disorders in Canada Through a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) Lens

2022· article· en· W4307384521 on OpenAlexaffabout
Shant Torkom Yeretzian, Yeva Sahakyan, Lusine Abrahamyan

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicHealth disparities and outcomes
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity Health Network
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyPopulationMental healthLogistic regressionMoodMood disordersSexual orientationPsychiatryMedicineClinical psychologyDemographyDepression (economics)PsychologyGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicineSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background The prevalence of mental disorders continues to increase worldwide. We assessed the prevalence and associated factors of mood and anxiety disorders in the Canadian population using a Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) lens on a nationally representative survey. Methods A secondary analysis of the 2017-2018 Canadian Community Health Survey (CCHS) - Annual Component was conducted using a GBA+ lens, an analytical process to incorporate sex, gender, and other intersecting identity factors into research, programs and policies. Sampling and bootstrap weights were applied to account for complex sampling design. Chi-square test and multivariable logistic regression models were used to assess associated factors of mood and anxiety disorders. Results 2017-2018 CCHS included 113,290 observations, representative of 98% of the Canadian population over the age of 12. Mood and anxiety disorders were more prevalent among females than males (11.0% vs 6.4% and 11.6% vs 6.3% respectively, p < 0.001). Logistic regression analyses revealed higher odds for both disorders for those who were female, unemployed, smokers, homosexual or bisexual, had low education and income levels, suffered from food insecurity or had disabilities. Statistically significant interactions were observed between sex and factors such as age, income, employment and sexual orientation. Of those who had a mood or anxiety disorder, 5.0% reported having unmet mental health care needs compared to 1.0% of the general population (p < 0.001). Those reporting unmet mental health care needs were more frequently younger, females, single parents, with disabilities, lower income and food insecurity. Conclusions Females in Canada continue to be affected by mood and anxiety disorders at higher rates than males. Strategies for preventing mental health disorders and improving mental health care must be tailored towards the needs of specific groups. We recommend the use of GBA+ as a guide in both research and policymaking. Key messages • This study provides estimates of the present state of mood and anxiety disorders in the Canadian population using secondary data from a cross-sectional, nationwide survey conducted through 2017-2018. • The application of Gender-Based Analysis Plus (GBA+) helps with the systematic evaluation of healthcare disparities and development of targeted strategies to address gaps in mental health.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.228

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.002
Bibliometrics0.0060.009
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0020.000
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0050.000

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 head0.166
GPT teacher head0.387
Teacher spread0.221 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2022
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of Public HealthSame topicHealth disparities and outcomesFrench-language works237,207