MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4321437694 · doi:10.1101/2023.02.13.23285862

Racial/Ethnic Disparities in Youth Mental Health Traits and Diagnoses within a Community-based Sample

2023· preprint· en· W4321437694 on OpenAlexafffund
Andrew S. Dissanayake, Annie Dupuis, Christie L. Burton, Noam Soreni, Paul A. Peters, Amy Gajaria, Paul Arnold, Jennifer Crosbie, Russell Schachar

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2023
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development
Canadian institutionsUniversity of CalgaryOntario Centre of Excellence for Child and Youth Mental HealthCentre for Addiction and Mental HealthMcMaster UniversityUniversity of TorontoSickKids FoundationChedoke HospitalSt. Joseph’s Healthcare HamiltonHospital for Sick ChildrenPublic Health Ontario
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAlberta Innovates
KeywordsEthnic groupAnxietyDemographyMental healthOdds ratioLogistic regressionClinical psychologyPsychiatryMedicineOddsPsychologyInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT Background Racial/ethnic disparities in the prevalence of mental health diagnoses have been reported but have not accounted for the prevalence of the traits that underlies these disorders. Examining rates of diagnoses in relation to traits may yield a clearer understanding of how racial/ethnic youth differ in their access to assessment and care. We sought to examine differences in self/parent-reported rates of diagnoses for obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), attention-deficit/ hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and anxiety disorders after adjusting for differences in trait levels between youth from three racial/ethnic groups: White, South Asian, and East Asian. Methods We collected parent or self-reported ratings of OCD, ADHD and anxiety traits and diagnoses for youth (6-17 years) from a general population sample (Spit for Science). We examined racial/ethnic differences in trait levels and the odds of reporting a diagnosis using mixed-effects linear models and logistic regression models. Results East Asian (N = 1301) and South Asian (N = 730) youth reported significantly higher levels of OCD and anxiety traits than White youth (N = 6896). Given the same trait level, East Asian and South Asian youth had significantly lower odds of reporting a diagnosis for OCD (Odds Ratio (OR) East Asian = 0.08 [0.02, 0.41] ; OR South Asian = 0.05 [0.00, 0.81]), ADHD (OR East Asian = 0.27 [0.16, 0.45]; OR South Asian = 0.09 [0.03, 0.30]), and Anxiety (OR East Asian = 0.21 [0.11, 0.39]; OR South Asian = 0.12 [0.05, 0.32]) than White youth. Conclusions These results suggest a discrepancy between traits-levels of OCD and anxiety and rates of diagnoses for East Asian and South Asian youth. This discrepancy may be due to increased barriers for ethnically diverse youth to access mental health care. Efforts to understand racial/ethnic barriers to care are needed. Key Points Despite having lower prevalence of diagnoses, East and South Asian youth reported significantly higher anxiety and OCD trait levels than White youth Given the same trait level, East Asian youth were at 92% lower odds of having received an OCD diagnosis, 73% lower odds of having received an ADHD diagnosis, and 79% lower odds of having received an Anxiety diagnosis than White youth Given the same trait level, South Asian youth were at 95% lower odds of having received an OCD diagnosis, 91% lower odds of having received an ADHD diagnosis, and 88% lower odds of having received an anxiety diagnosis Future research is needed to understand barriers to mental health care and assessment that may underly the discrepancy between mental health traits and diagnoses for ethnic/racially diverse youth.

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 score0.031
Threshold uncertainty score0.061

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
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 head0.126
GPT teacher head0.355
Teacher spread0.229 · 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

Citations1
Published2023
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicChild and Adolescent Psychosocial and Emotional Development→French-language works237,207→