3.8 Article

Depression and Anxiety in Patients with Chronic Liver Disease and their Relationship with Quality of Life

Journal

ANNALS OF INDIAN PSYCHIATRY
Volume 4, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

WOLTERS KLUWER MEDKNOW PUBLICATIONS
DOI: 10.4103/aip.aip_46_19

Keywords

Anxiety; chronic liver disease; depression; quality of life

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background: Chronic liver disease (CLD) is a long-standing and debilitating condition where comorbid psychiatric conditions add on to the morbidity. The current study aims to observe how comorbid clinical anxiety and depression affects the overall picture. Aims: To observe how depression and anxiety influences the overall outcome of CLD patients. Settings and Design: It was a hospital-based cross-sectional study. Materials and Methods: Seventy-five consecutive CLD patients were assessed for depression and anxiety through the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale and for quality of life (QOL) through the abbreviated version of WHOQOL scale. Statistical Analysis: The data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 16.0 for Windows. Patients were grouped as with or without anxiety and depression. The groups were compared using Mann-Whitney U-test and Fisher's exact test for continuous and categorical variables, respectively. Results: Both anxious (P = 0.005) and depressed (P < 0.001) patients were significantly older than their nonanxious and nondepressed counterparts. Significantly higher proportion of patients with depression were married (P = 0.002) and employed (P = 0.014) than those without. Both the patients with anxiety and those with depression had significantly poorer QOL in all measurable domains than those without anxiety or depression. Conclusion: When clinically significant anxiety and depression are present as comorbidities in CLD patients, they significantly worsen the QOL in them.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available