Descriptive Epidemiology of Major Depressive Disorder in Canada in 2012
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The epidemiology of major depressive disorder (MDD) was first described in the Canadian national population in 2002. Updated information is now available from a 2012 survey: the Canadian Community Health Study-Mental Health (CCHS-MH). METHOD: The CCHS-MH employed an adaptation of the World Health Organization World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview and had a sample of n=25 113. Demographic variables, treatment, comorbidities, suicidal ideation, and perceived stigma were assessed. The analysis estimated adjusted and unadjusted frequencies and prevalence ratios. All estimates incorporated analysis methods to account for complex survey design effects. RESULTS: The past-year prevalence of MDD was 3.9% (95% CI 3.5% to 4.2%). Prevalence was higher in women and in younger age groups. Among respondents with past-year MDD, 63.1% had sought treatment and 33.1% were taking an antidepressant (AD); 4.8% had past-year alcohol abuse and 4.5% had alcohol dependence. Among respondents with past-year MDD, the prevalence of cannabis abuse was 2.5% and that of dependence was 2.9%. For drugs other than cannabis, the prevalence of abuse was 2.3% and dependence was 2.9%. Generalized anxiety disorder was present in 24.9%. Suicide attempts were reported by 6.6% of respondents with past-year MDD. Among respondents accessing treatment, 37.5% perceived that others held negative opinions about them or treated them unfairly because of their disorder. CONCLUSIONS: MDD is a common, burdensome, and stigmatized condition in Canada. Seeking help from professionals was reported at a higher frequency than in prior Canadian studies, but there has been no increase in AD use among Canadians with MDD.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".