Determinants of effective treatment coverage for posttraumatic stress disorder: findings from the World Mental Health Surveys
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) is associated with significant morbidity, but efficacious pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy are available. Data from the World Mental Health Surveys were used to investigate extent and predictors of treatment coverage for PTSD in high-income countries (HICs) as well as in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). METHODS: Seventeen surveys were conducted across 15 countries (9 HICs, 6 LMICs) by the World Health Organization (WHO) World Mental Health Surveys. Of 35,012 respondents, 914 met DSM-IV criteria for 12-month PTSD. Components of treatment coverage analyzed were: (a) any mental health service utilization; (b) adequate pharmacotherapy; (c) adequate psychotherapy; and (d) effective treatment coverage. Regression models investigated predictors of treatment coverage. RESULTS: 12-month PTSD prevalence in trauma exposed individuals was 1.49 (S.E., 0.08). A total of 43.0% (S.E., 2.2) received any mental health services, with fewer receiving adequate pharmacotherapy (13.5%), adequate psychotherapy (17.2%), or effective treatment coverage (14.4%), and with all components of treatment coverage lower in LMICs than HICs. In a multivariable model having insurance (OR = 2.31, 95 CI 1.17, 4.57) and severity of symptoms (OR = .35, 95% CI 0.18, 0.70) were predictive of effective treatment coverage. CONCLUSION: There is a clear need to improve pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy coverage for PTSD, particularly in those with mild symptoms, and especially in LMICs. Universal health care insurance can be expected to increase effective treatment coverage and therefore improve outcomes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".