MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4310530759 · doi:10.1186/s12889-022-14633-4

Symptoms of depression and anxiety, and unmet healthcare needs in adults during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional study from the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging

2022· article· en· W4310530759 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Jayati Khattar, Lauren E. Griffith, Aaron Jones, Vanessa De Rubeis, Margaret de Groh, Ying Jiang, Nicole E. Basta, Susan Kirkland, Christina Wolfson, Parminder Raina, Laura N. Anderson, Andrew P. Costa, Cynthia Balion, Yukiko Asada, Benoît Cossette, Mélanie Levasseur, Scott M. Hofer, Theone Paterson, David B. Hogan, Jacqueline M. McMillan, Teresa Liu‐Ambrose, Verena Menec, Philip St. John, Gerald Mugford, Zhiwei Gao, Vanessa Taler, Patrick S. R. Davidson, Andrew Wister, Theodore D. Cosco

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Public Health · 2022
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcGill University Health CentreDalhousie UniversityPublic Health Agency of CanadaMcMaster UniversityMcGill UniversityImpact
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchGovernment of Canada
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyPandemicAnxietyMarital statusDepression (economics)BiostatisticsPublic healthMental healthLongitudinal studyHealth careEpidemiologyResidenceOddsHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleLogistic regressionGerontologyPsychiatryEnvironmental healthCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DemographyPopulationNursingDiseaseInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic disrupted access to healthcare services in Canada. Research prior to the pandemic has found that depression and anxiety symptoms were associated with increased unmet healthcare needs. The primary objective of this study was to examine if mental health was associated with perceived access to healthcare during the pandemic METHODS: A cross-sectional study was conducted using data from 23,972 participants (aged 50-96) in the Canadian Longitudinal Study on Aging COVID-19 Exit Survey (Sept-Dec 2020). We used logistic regression to estimate how the presence of depression and anxiety symptoms, defined using scores of ≥10 on the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale and ≥10 on the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale, were associated with the odds of reporting: 1) challenges accessing healthcare, 2) not going to a hospital or seeing a doctor when needed, 3) experiencing barriers to COVID-19 testing. Models were adjusted for sex, age, region, urban/rural residence, racial background, immigrant status, income, marital status, work status, chronic conditions, and pre-pandemic unmet needs. RESULTS: The presence of depressive (aOR=1.96; 95% CI=1.82, 2.11) and anxiety symptoms (aOR=2.33; 95% CI=2.04, 2.66) compared to the absence of these symptoms were independently associated with higher odds of challenges accessing healthcare. A statistically significant interaction with sex suggested stronger associations in females with anxiety. Symptoms of depression (aOR=2.88; 95% CI=2.58, 3.21) and anxiety (aOR=3.05; 95% CI=2.58, 3.60) were also associated with increased odds of not going to a hospital or seeing a doctor when needed. Lastly, depressive (aOR=1.99; 95% CI=1.71, 2.31) and anxiety symptoms (aOR=2.01; 95% CI=1.58, 2.56) were associated with higher odds of reporting barriers to COVID-19 testing. There was no significantly significant interaction with sex for the latter two outcomes. CONCLUSION: The presence of depression and anxiety symptoms were strongly associated with perceived unmet healthcare needs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Interventions to improve healthcare access for adults with depression and anxiety during the pandemic may be necessary.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.070
Threshold uncertainty score0.140

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.157
GPT teacher head0.450
Teacher spread0.292 · 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

Citations27
Published2022
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC Public HealthSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207