Original Research Suicidality, Depression, and Mental Health Service Use in Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: To determine the magnitude of depression and suicidal populations, the overlap between these populations, and the associated patterns of mental health service use. Method: We examined depression, suicidality (ideation and nonfatal behaviours), and the mental health service use of participants in the Canadian Community Health Survey Cycle 1.2: Mental Health and Well-Being. The sample comprised 36 984 household members aged 15 years or over. Results: Approximately 4 % to 5 % of the population suffered from a major depression or suicidality. About 2 of 3 of those who were suicidal did not suffer from depression, and over 70 % of those with depression did not report suicidality. Persons with depression and suicidality or depression (but no suicidality) were the 2 groups most likely to report ambulatory mental health contacts, and the provider groups contacted most often included physicians. The use of provider groups was considerably lower for those who were suicidal (but had no depression). Whereas the latter were more likely to report contacts than not, suicidality, in and of itself, did not exert a strong effect on contact with any particular provider group. For those who were suicidal (but who had no depression), less than 1 in 3 reported any mental health service contact, including an inpatient mental health stay. Conclusions: The lack of contact by those who are suicidal (but who have no depression) is provocative, given that almost 2 of 3 of the suicidal subjects had no depression. Detrimental outcomes such as depression may develop without effective early interventions and uptake by a sufficient supply of appropriately trained and financially accessible personnel. (Can J Psychiatry 2006;51:35–41) Information on funding and support and author affiliations appears at the end of the article.
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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 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".