4.5 Article

Depressive symptoms in Fabry disease: the importance of coping, subjective health perception and pain

Journal

ORPHANET JOURNAL OF RARE DISEASES
Volume 15, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s13023-020-1307-y

Keywords

Fabry disease; Depressive symptoms; Depression; Coping; Pain; Health perception

Funding

  1. Academic Medical Center

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Despite the high prevalence of depressive symptoms in Fabry disease (FD), it is unclear which patient characteristics are important in relation to these symptoms. Additionally, the impact of coping styles in relation to depressive symptoms in FD has been unexplored. Determining the impact of different factors relating to depressive symptoms in FD can guide both prevention and treatment of these symptoms. Methods Depressive symptoms (Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale (CESD)) and coping styles (Utrecht Coping List) were assessed in a Dutch FD cohort. Other potentially important variables were identified from FD literature and assessed in this cohort. Relations were evaluated using multiple linear models. Results Potentially important variables in FD literature were: pain, unemployment, health perception, being single, comorbidities and stroke. Employed coping styles were avoidance and brooding, positivity and problem solving and seeking social support. Thirty-one of the 81 FD patients (38%) had depressive symptoms. CESD-scores were lower in patients with better health perception and more positivity and problem solving and higher in patients with more pain and avoidance and brooding. The best model explained 70% (95%CI: 54-76%) of observed variance of the CESD. Conclusions Depressive symptoms in FD are related to pain, negative health perception and use of specific coping styles. Psychological interventions could be employed to alter coping behavior and alleviate depressive symptoms.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available