4.4 Article

Poor mental health status and its associations with demographic characteristics and chronic diseases in Chinese elderly

期刊

SOCIAL PSYCHIATRY AND PSYCHIATRIC EPIDEMIOLOGY
卷 51, 期 10, 页码 1449-1455

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00127-016-1271-y

关键词

Mental health; Chronic disease; Chinese elderly

资金

  1. Scientific Research Foundation of the Health Bureau of Jilin Province, China [2011Z116]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although poor mental health is associated with significant personal and societal burden, it is rarely reported in older Chinese populations. This study examined the mental health status of a large representative sample of Chinese elderly in relation to socio-demographic characteristics, lifestyle, and chronic diseases. Multistage stratified cluster sampling was used in this cross-sectional study. A total of 4115 people aged between 60 and 79 years were selected and interviewed with standardized assessment tools. The 12-item General Health Questionnaire (GHQ-12) was used to measure general mental health with the total score of aeyen4 as the threshold for poor mental health status. The adjusted percentage of poor mental health status in the whole sample was 23.8 %; 18.5 % in men and 28.9 % in women. Multivariate logistic regression analysis revealed that female gender, widowed/separated marital status, rural abode, low income, poor diet, lack of physical exercise, and multi-morbidity were independently associated with poor mental health. The percentage of poor mental health status was significantly higher in patients with anemia, diabetes, hyperlipidemia, cataract/glaucoma, ischemic heart disease, cerebrovascular diseases, nasopharyngitis, chronic gastroenteritis/peptic ulcer, liver diseases, cholecystitis/gallstone, arthritis, or chronic low back pain. Given the high rate of poor mental health status among older Chinese population, policy makers and health professionals in China should address the mental health burden of its aging population.

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