4.6 Article

Trends in the Prevalence of Depression in Hospitalized Patients with Type 2 Diabetes in Spain: Analysis of Hospital Discharge Data from 2001 to 2011

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 10, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0117346

关键词

-

资金

  1. FIS (Fondo de Investigaciones Sanitarias-Health Research Fund) [PI13/00118]
  2. FIS (Instituto de Salud Carlos III)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This study aims to describe trends in the prevalence of depression among hospitalized patients with type 2 diabetes in Spain, 2001-2011. Methods We selected patients with a discharge diagnosis of type 2 diabetes using national hospital discharge data. Discharges were grouped by depression status. Prevalence of depression globally and according to primary diagnoses based on the Charlson comorbidity index (CCI) were analyzed. We calculated length of stay (LOHS) and in-hospital mortality (IHM). Multivariate analysis was adjusted by age, year and comorbidity. Results From 2001 to 2011, 4,723,338 discharges with type 2 diabetes were identified (4.93% with depression). Prevalence of depression in diabetic patients increased from 3.54% in 2001 to 5.80% in 2011 (p<0.05). The prevalence of depression was significantly higher in women than in men in each year studied and increased from 5.22% in 2001 to 9.24% in 2011 (p<0.01). The highest prevalence was observed in the youngest age group (35-59 years). The median LOHS decreased significantly over this period. Men with diabetes and depression had higher IHM than women in all the years studied (p<0.05). Older age and greater comorbidity were significantly associated with a higher risk of dying, among diabetic patients with concomitant depression. Conclusions Prevalence of depression increased significantly among hospitalized diabetic patients from 2001 to 2011 even if the health profile and LOHS have improved over this period. Programs targeted at preventing depression among persons with diabetes should be reinforced in Spain.

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

4.6
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