Care trajectories of people with mood disorders in Quebec using latent class and latent profile analysis methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prevalence of mood disorders has increased globally. People with mood disorders have been found to use more health services than the general population, although a mood disorder diagnosis does not necessarily entail utilization of health services. This heterogeneity in health services utilization could make it difficult for governments to plan resources to meet the needs of people with mood disorders. A patient-level linked database from residents of Quebec, Canada was used to model care trajectories of people who self-reported having been diagnosed with a mood disorder. The data from the Canadian Community Health Survey were linked to health administrative data for a 21-year period. We used latent class analysis and latent profile analysis to group people into categories. Four care trajectories were identified using the latent class analysis: 1) people who only used services of a general practitioner; 2) people having seen a psychiatrist or having at least one ED visit or hospitalization; 3) people consulting other types of specialists; 4) null utilization. The latent profile analysis on medical services yielded four profiles, with average numbers of services of 41, 33, 7, and 1, while that on hospitalization yielded two profiles, with 20 % of the population having had at least one hospitalization and the remainder none. By classifying people into service utilization groups, these methods enable determining needs for a given population and can support resource allocation for health care decision makers.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".