4.5 Article

Normal Aging or Depression? A Qualitative Study on the Differences Between Subsyndromal Depression and Depression in Very Old People

Journal

GERONTOLOGIST
Volume 55, Issue 5, Pages 760-769

Publisher

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1093/geront/gnt162

Keywords

Subthreshold depression; Healthy aging; Successful aging; Coping; Frailty

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose of the Study: The aim of this study was to make a qualitative comparison of experiences of being in very old people with subsyndromal depression (SSD), in relation to the experiences of very old people with syndromal depression or nondepression. Through investigation and deeper understanding of the interface between depressive disease and normal aging, clinicians might give more accurate prevention or treatment to those very old persons who need such help. Design and Methods: Semistructured qualitative interviews were conducted for 27 individuals of 87-88 years of age, who were categorized in the 3 strata of nondepressive, SSD, and syndromal depression. Transcripts were analyzed using qualitative content analysis within each stratum and later with a comparison between the strata. Results: The content analysis resulted in 4 themes in people with SSD, as defined by a self-report depression screening instrument, giving a comprehensive picture of SSD in very old people, and also showed qualitative differences between the SSD, syndromal depression, and nondepressive groups. A main finding was that SSD differs qualitatively from syndromal depression but not clearly from nondepression. Implications: The results might indicate that SSD in very old people is not related to pathology but to normal aging, even though the condition correlates with negative health parameters. Overlooking certain psychosocial aspects of living in the very old may pose a risk of both underdiagnosis and overdiagnosis in the spectrum of depressive disorders.

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