4.5 Article

One extra month of depression:: the effects of caregiving on depression outcomes in the IMPACT trial

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.1929

关键词

depression; elderly; caregiving; IMPACT

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [T32 MH020021-10, T32 MH020021] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Depression occurs in 5-10% of older adults and there are nearly 6 million informal caregivers aged 65 or older. Prior research has focused on vulnerability to psychological distress in caregivers. Research has not addressed the caregiving burden of depressed elderly patients or how that burden affects depression treatment outcomes. Aims To describe the self-reported caregiving burden in a large, representative cohort of depressed elderly patients and compare depression treatment outcomes between caregivers and non-caregivers. Methods Univariate and multiple regression analyses were performed comparing 24-month depression outcomes (measured as depression free days) in those providing care at any time over the 24-month trial to those who never reported a caregiving burden. Results At 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months, nearly 10% of cohabitating elderly depressed patients provided care for basic activities such as bathing ordressing while nearly 20% reported providing care for other activities such as making phone calls or taking medication. Over 24 months, after adjusting for marital status, intervention status, and number of medical comorbidities, those reporting any caregiving burden had over 30 more days with depression compared to those with no caregiving burden. The IMPACT collaborative care model did not modify the effect of caregiving on depression outcomes. Conclusion Caregiving is common in depressed older adults and appears to affect response to depression treatment. In the future, interventions for depressed older adults should consider and specifically address caregiving activities in addition to specific depression treatment. Copyright (c) 2007 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据