4.4 Article

Predictors of depression amongst older adults with acute coronary syndrome seeking emergency care

期刊

出版社

WILEY-HINDAWI
DOI: 10.1111/ijcp.14203

关键词

-

资金

  1. Jordan University of Science and Technology [20200293]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study analyzed data from 300 older adult ACS patients and found a high prevalence of depression at 65.7%. Key predictors of depression included age, frailty, troponin, and HBA1C.
Objectives Psychological and traumatic events may cause disruption to daily life for patients, in particular, older adult patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). The present study aimed to identify the prevalence of depression and explore its predictors amongst older adults with ACS seeking emergency care. Methods Secondary data analysis of cross-sectional data, using a convenience sample of 300 older adult patients with ACS seeking emergency care, was used in this study. Bivariate and multivariate analyses, including linear regression models, were conducted. Results The prevalence of depression amongst older adult patients with ACS seeking emergency care was 65.7%. The predictors of depression amongst this cohort of patients were age (t = 3.06, P = .003), frailty (t = 5.77, P < .001), troponin (t = 2.98, P = .003), and hemoglobin alpha 1C (HBA1C) (t = 3.18, P = .002). The model of these predictors explained 56.6% of the variation in the outcome (depression) (Adjusted R-2 = 0.566, P = .017). Depression had a significant positive correlation with each intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) (rho = 0.31, P < .001), hospital LOS (rho = 0.36, P < .001), and frailty (rho = 0.69). Conclusion Depression rate is high amongst those patients, so healthcare providers (HCPs) should assess those patients for depression and be prepared to intervene accordingly. Depression amongst older adult patients with ACS seeking emergency care necessitates emergency management protocol by HCPs to manage depression amongst this cohort of at-risk patients.

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