Perceived Need for Mental Health Care in a Cohort of Persons With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Psychiatric comorbidity is common in inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and can negatively affect disease outcomes. We explored the perceived need for mental health care among persons with IBD. STUDY: Persons with IBD completed self-report questionnaires, including the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and reported whether they wanted help with their mood. Each was also assessed using the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV-TR Axis-I Disorders (SCIDs). We used logistic regression analyses to determine factors associated with the perceived need for mental health care. RESULTS: Of 245 participants, 28% met the criteria for a past diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder by SCID, and nearly 23% met the criteria for a current diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder. One-third (n = 74) reported a perceived need for mental health care. Among those meeting criteria for a current SCID diagnosis of depression or anxiety, only 58% reported needing mental health care. Need for mental health care was reported by 79% of persons currently treated for either depression or 71% treated for anxiety. Persons with a perceived need for mental health care had higher mean HADS for depression and HADS for anxiety scores and also higher IBD symptom activity scores. Of those reporting no perceived need for mental health care, 13% had a current diagnosis of depression or anxiety disorder by SCID; even fewer had symptoms of depression or anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Symptoms of depression or anxiety are more important than a formal diagnosis of depression or anxiety in predicting which persons with IBD will perceive a need for mental health care.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".