Cited by 60Mental Health Treatment and AccessAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesTreatment of Major Depression

Adequacy of depression treatment among college students in the United States

Eisenberg, Daniel, Chung, Henry·2012·General Hospital Psychiatry

Abstract

Objective There is no published evidence on the adequacy of depression care among college students and how this varies by subpopulations and provider types. We estimated the prevalence of minimally adequate treatment among students with significant past-year depressive symptoms.Method Data were collected via a confidential online survey of a random sample of 8488 students from 15 colleges and universities in the 2009 Healthy Minds Study. Depressive symptoms were assessed by the Patient Health Questionnaire-2, adapted to a past-year time frame. Students with probable depression were coded as having received minimally adequate depression care based on the criteria from Wang and colleagues (2005).Results Minimally adequate treatment was received by only 22% of depressed students. The likelihood of minimally adequate treatment was similarly low for both psychiatric medication and psychotherapy. Minimally adequate care was lower for students prescribed medication by a primary care provider as compared to a psychiatrist (P<.01). Racial/ethnic minority students were less likely to receive depression care (P<.01).Conclusions Adequacy of depression care is a significant problem in the college population. Solutions will likely require greater availability of psychiatry care, better coordination between specialty and primary care using collaborative care models, and increased efforts to retain students in psychotherapy.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.genhosppsych.2012.01.002

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Eisenberg, D., & Chung, H.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Albert Einstein College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
Eisenberg, Daniel
Venue
General Hospital Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-05
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
213-220
ISSN
0163-8343 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005324325
Cited by
60
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 4
FWCI
4.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • General Hospital Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health Treatment and Access
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Treatment of Major Depression
Keywords
depression, university students, treatment adequacy, access to mental health care, psychiatric medication, psychotherapy, primary care providers, psychiatrists, racial and ethnic minorities, collaborative care, Healthy Minds Study
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Students, United States, Universities, Treatment Outcome, Health Care Surveys, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review