MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366234743 · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1004187

Mental health and addiction health service use by physicians compared to non-physicians before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada

2023· article· en· W4366234743 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Daniel T. Myran, Rhiannon Roberts, Eric McArthur, Nivethika Jeyakumar, Jennifer Hensel, Claire Kendall, Caroline Gérin‐Lajoie, Taylor McFadden, Christopher Simon, Amit X. Garg, Manish M. Sood, Peter Tanuseputro

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldHealth Professions
TopicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnout
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLawson Health Research InstituteCanadian Medical AssociationOttawa HospitalUniversity of ManitobaLondon Health Sciences CentreBruyèreUniversity of Ottawa
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchAcademic Medical Organization of Southwestern Ontario
KeywordsMedicineMental healthPandemicPopulationFamily medicineCohortHealth careCohort studyAddictionPsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)DiseaseEnvironmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has exacerbated mental health challenges among physicians and non-physicians. However, it is unclear if the worsening mental health among physicians is due to specific occupational stressors, reflective of general societal stressors during the pandemic, or a combination. We evaluated the difference in mental health and addictions health service use between physicians and non-physicians, before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a population-based cohort study in Ontario, Canada between March 11, 2017 and August 11, 2021 using data collected from Ontario's universal health system. Physicians were identified using registrations with the College of Physicians and Surgeons of Ontario between 1990 and 2020. Participants included 41,814 physicians and 12,054,070 non-physicians. We compared the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2020 to August 11, 2021) to the period before COVID-19 pandemic (March 11, 2017 to February 11, 2020). The primary outcome was mental health and addiction outpatient visits overall and subdivided into virtual versus in-person, psychiatrists versus family medicine and general practice clinicians. We used generalized estimating equations for the analyses. Pre-pandemic, after adjustment for age and sex, physicians had higher rates of psychiatry visits (aIRR 3.91 95% CI 3.55 to 4.30) and lower rates of family medicine visits (aIRR 0.62 95% CI 0.58 to 0.66) compared to non-physicians. During the first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic, the rate of outpatient mental health and addiction (MHA) visits increased by 23.2% in physicians (888.4 pre versus 1,094.7 during per 1,000 person-years, aIRR 1.39 95% CI 1.28 to 1.51) and 9.8% in non-physicians (615.5 pre versus 675.9 during per 1,000 person-years, aIRR 1.12 95% CI 1.09 to 1.14). Outpatient MHA and virtual care visits increased more among physicians than non-physicians during the first 18 months of the pandemic. Limitations include residual confounding between physician and non-physicians and challenges differentiating whether observed increases in MHA visits during the pandemic are due to stressors or changes in health care access. CONCLUSIONS: The first 18 months of the COVID-19 pandemic was associated with a larger increase in outpatient MHA visits in physicians than non-physicians. These findings suggest physicians may have had larger negative mental health during COVID-19 than the general population and highlight the need for increased access to mental health services and system level changes to promote physician wellness.

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 score0.022
Threshold uncertainty score0.161

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.397
Teacher spread0.327 · 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

Citations7
Published2023
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS MedicineSame topicHealthcare professionals’ stress and burnoutFrench-language works237,207