4.6 Review

Assessment of the relationship between living alone and the risk of depression based on longitudinal studies: A systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHIATRY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2022.954857

关键词

living alone; depression; longitudinal studies; systematic review; meta-analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study based on longitudinal studies found that living alone increases the risk of depression compared to living with others. More high-quality studies will be required in the future to confirm this causal association.
Background: Living alone is one of the most common psychosocial factors that may have an impact on lifestyle management and health status. Although many previous cross-sectional studies have found that living alone increases the risk of depression. However, this risk has rarely been assessed on the basis of longitudinal studies. Therefore, we will explore this relationship on the basis of longitudinal studies. Methods: We systematically searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane databases up to May 2022. Adjusted odds ratios (ORs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled by a random-effects model using an inverse variance method. Results: Seven studies (six cohort studies and one case-control study) were included in our study. A total of 123,859 without a history of psychosis individuals were included, and the proportion of females was 65.3%. We applied a random-effects model to minimize the heterogeneity. Overall, the pooled data suggest that people living alone are associated with an increased risk of depression compared to those who do not live alone (OR 1.42, 95%CI 1.19-1.70). Conclusion: Compared to people who live with others, living alone increases the risk of depression. Only cross-sectional studies and a few longitudinal studies currently support this association; more high-quality studies will be required in the future to confirm this causal association.

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