4.4 Article

Relationship quality and levels of depression and anxiety in a large population-based survey

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-012-0559-9

关键词

Anxiety; Depression; Relationship quality; Population survey

资金

  1. National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia [179805, 418039]
  2. NHMRC Early Career Fellowship [1035803]
  3. NHMRC [1035690]
  4. NHMRC Career Development Award [525410]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

There is substantial literature suggesting that the mental health benefits of marriage (compared to being single) are greater for those in 'good-quality' relationships in comparison to those in 'poor-quality' relationships. However, little of this research utilises large population-based surveys. Large surveys in psychiatric epidemiology have focused almost exclusively on the association between marital status and mental health. The current study explores some of the reasons for this gap in the literature, and adopts a large, representative community-based sample to investigate whether associations between relationship status and levels of depression and anxiety are moderated by relationship quality. Participants were from Wave 3 of the PATH Survey, a longitudinal community survey assessing the health and well-being of residents of the Canberra region, Australia (n = 3,820). Relationship quality was measured using the 7 item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7), and levels of depression and anxiety were measured using the Goldberg Scales. Both cross-sectional and prospective analyses showed that associations between relationship status and mental health were moderated by relationship quality for both men and women, such that only good-quality relationships bestowed mental health benefits over remaining single. For women, being in a poor-quality relationship was associated with greater levels of anxiety than being single. Epidemiological studies need to measure relationship quality to qualify the effect of relationship status on mental health.

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

4.4
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