4.4 Article

Low birth weight and features of neuroticism and mood disorder in 83 545 participants of the UK Biobank cohort

Journal

BJPSYCH OPEN
Volume 2, Issue 1, Pages 38-44

Publisher

ROYAL COLL PSYCHIATRISTS
DOI: 10.1192/bjpo.bp.115.002154

Keywords

-

Categories

Funding

  1. Welsh Assembly Government
  2. British Heart Foundation
  3. Medical Research Council [MC_qA137853, MR/K026992/1] Funding Source: researchfish
  4. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0515-10102] Funding Source: researchfish

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Background Low birth weight has been inconsistently associated with risk of developing affective disorders, including major depressive disorder (MDD). To date, studies investigating possible associations between birth weight and bipolar disorder (BD), or personality traits known to predispose to affective disorders such as neuroticism, have not been conducted in large cohorts. Aims To assess whether very low birth weight (< 1500 g) and low birth weight (1500-2490 g) were associated with higher neuroticism scores assessed in middle age, and lifetime history of either MDD or BD. We controlled for possible confounding factors. Method Retrospective cohort study using baseline data on the 83 545 UK Biobank participants with detailed mental health and birth weight data. Main outcomes were prevalent MDD and BD, and neuroticism assessed using the Eysenck Personality Inventory Neuroticism scale - Revised (EPIN-R) Results Referent to normal birth weight, very low/low birth weight were associated with higher neuroticism scores, increased MDD and BD. The associations between birth weight category and MDD were partially mediated by higher neuroticism. Conclusions These findings suggest that intrauterine programming may play a role in lifetime vulnerability to affective disorders. Declaration of interest None. Copyright and usage (C) The Royal College of Psychiatrists 2016.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available