Mental healthcare utilisation among individuals with colorectal cancer: population-based cohort studies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Individuals with colorectal cancer (CRC) have an increased risk of mental disorders, yet mental healthcare utilisation has not been adequately examined. We evaluated mental healthcare utilisation and receipt of minimally adequate treatments for anxiety and/or depression among individuals with and without CRC. Methods and analysis: We used administrative health databases from British Columbia, Canada, comprised of individuals with CRC and individuals without CRC, matched (1:1 ratio) on age, sex and incident mental disorder(s) (ie, occurring after CRC diagnosis/matched date). Primary outcomes were minimally adequate antidepressant pharmacotherapy (≥84 days' supply) and psychological (≥4 services) treatment. Results: Among individuals with CRC, 1462 had incident anxiety (mean age 64.6±12.5 years, 59.2% females), 4640 had incident depression (mean age 66.3±12.3 years, 51.2% females). Approximately one in four individuals with CRC were diagnosed with anxiety (23.4%) and/or depression (23.2%) in the first year after CRC diagnosis. Minimally adequate antidepressant pharmacotherapy (36.2%) and psychological treatment (15.9%) for anxiety were significantly lower in CRC patients than in those without CRC (pharmacotherapy adjusted OR (aOR) 0.74; 95% CI 0.61, 0.88; psychological treatment aOR 0.74; 95% CI 0.58, 0.95). Similar findings were observed for depression (pharmacotherapy aOR 0.81; 95% CI 0.74, 0.90). Among individuals with CRC, mental healthcare utilisation persisted up to 10 years post-mental disorder diagnosis. Conclusions: Individuals with CRC receive less mental health treatment for anxiety and/or depression, compared with those without CRC. Findings raise awareness for the need for ongoing mental healthcare throughout and beyond CRC.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".