4.7 Article

Burden of depression in China, 1990-2017: Findings from the global burden of disease study 2017

Journal

JOURNAL OF AFFECTIVE DISORDERS
Volume 268, Issue -, Pages 95-101

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.011

Keywords

Burden of disease; Depression; Epidemiology

Funding

  1. National Center for Chronic and Noncommunicable Disease Control and Prevention (China)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Depression in China has risen from the 15th leading cause of all-cause disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) in 1990 to the 10th in 2017. However, the burden of depression and the epidemiological trend in Chinese provinces remain unclear. This study aimed to estimate the prevalence and burden of depression among different sexes, ages, disease types and provincial administrative units in China. Methods: Based on a general analysis of the Global Burden of Disease study (GBD) in 2017, we analyzed the age-sex- and province-specific prevalence and DALYs of depression in China from 1990 to 2017. Results: From 1990 to 2017, the all-age prevalence rate of depression per 100,000 rose from 3224.6 (95% UI:2976.6-3509.1) to 3990.5 (95% UI: 3667.8-4353.0), and the DALY rate per 100,000 rose from 525.1 (95% UI: 373.5-719.0) to 607.4 (95% UI: 427.7-820.2). The prevalence rate decreased in the population aged 5-54 years, and increased in the population aged over 55 years. In 2017, the prevalence rate of females (5039.6, 95% UI: 4630.0-5502.8) was significantly higher than that of males (2984.9, 95% UI: 2736.0-3265.3). The prevalence and DALY rate increased in all provinces. However, the age-standardized prevalence and DALYs rate decreased in 31 provinces. Conclusions: Depression has gradually become a major public health issue in China. The government should take measures to prevent the development of depression immediately. Women and the elderly are at high risk for depression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available