4.2 Article

Rhinitis as an associated factor for anxiety and depression amongst adults

期刊

BRAZILIAN JOURNAL OF OTORHINOLARYNGOLOGY
卷 83, 期 4, 页码 432-438

出版社

ASSOC BRASILEIRA OTORRINOLARINGOLOGIA & CIRURGIA CERVICOFACIAL
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjorl.2016.05.008

关键词

Anxiety; Depression; Allergic rhinitis; Adults

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Introduction: Anxiety and depression are frequent disorders of chronic diseases, yet there is no conclusive information to their association with rhinitis. Objective: The objective is to determine the frequency of anxiety and depression and its possible association to allergic rhinitis (AR) and non-allergic rhinitis (NAR). Methods: This is a cross-sectional study in which procured subjects with AR (n=111), NAR (n=34) and a control group (n=96) from the university hospital. The presence of anxiety and depression was considered when it reached a score > 13 based on The Beck Anxiety Inventory Test and The Beck Depression Inventory II Test, respectively. The association between AR and NAR with anxiety and depression was adjusted with the Mantel-Haenszel Method and logistic regression. Results: The frequency for anxiety in AR, NAR and the control group was 45.9%, 52.9%, 10.4%, respectively (p<0.001); depression frequency was 38.7%, 47.1%, 16.6% (p = 0.0003), respectively. Both AR and NAR were associated to anxiety and depression in women, but not to men. After adjusting the sex: AR was associated to anxiety (OR = 5.7, p < 0.001) and depression (OR= 2.5, p = 0.015), while NAR was also associated to anxiety (OR= 7.8, p <0.001) and depression (OR= 3.3, p < 0.014). In multivariate analysis it was identified that AR, NAR and the individual's sex (women) were factors associated to anxiety and depression. Results showed that age was only associated to anxiety. Conclusion: AR and NAR are diseases associated to anxiety and depression, at least in women. (C) 2016 Associacao Brasileira de Otorrinolaringologia e Cirurgia Cervico-Facial. Published by Elsevier Editora Ltda.

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

4.2
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