Prevalence of Anxiety and Depressive Disorders Among Patients Diagnosed With Inflammatory Bowel Disease
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is linked to high risks of depression and anxiety. Stigma, limited mental health awareness, and barriers to access continue to contribute to underdiagnosis in Saudi Arabia. This study aimed to determine the prevalence of depression and anxiety among IBD patients, identify related risk factors, and assess barriers to mental health treatment. Methods: A cross-sectional study including 92 IBD patients from gastroenterology clinics at King Faisal and Al-Noor hospitals was conducted. Data were collected through face-to-face, phone interviews, and an online Arabic questionnaire assessing sociodemographic, IBD-related factors, and mental health information using Patient Health Questionnaire-2 (PHQ-2) and Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD-7). Analysis employed Chi-square, Fisher's exact, and logistic regression model to determine associations. Results: Among 92 patients, 15.2% had symptoms of anxiety, depression, or both. Screening detected 19.6% with depressive symptoms (PHQ-2) and 46.7% with anxiety symptoms (GAD-7), with 17.4% experiencing severe anxiety symptoms. Saudi nationality (OR = 40.15, P = 0.035) was significantly linked to clinical diagnoses. Shorter disease duration (< 6 months, P = 0.017; 1-3 years, P = 0.011), was associated with lower odds of anxiety symptoms, while recent exacerbations (< 3 months, P = 0.012) were associated with increased risk of anxiety symptoms. Higher risk of depression symptoms was associated with recent exacerbations (OR = 7.51, P = 0.055) and smoking (OR = 5.04, P = 0.072). Barriers included stigma (8.7%), cost (6.5%), and concerns about medication side effects (40.2%). Conclusion: The burden of undiagnosed anxiety and depression is significant among IBD patients in Makkah. Routine screening, stigma reduction, and integrated mental health care are essential.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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) | 0.001 | 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".