4.5 Article

Sensory loss and suicide ideation in older adults: findings from the Three-City cohort study

期刊

INTERNATIONAL PSYCHOGERIATRICS
卷 31, 期 1, 页码 139-145

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S104161021800056X

关键词

suicidal; elderly; vision impairment; dual sensory loss; hearing impairment; mental health

资金

  1. European Union [668648]
  2. Fondation pour la Recherche Medicale
  3. Caisse Nationale Maladie des Travailleurs Salaries
  4. Direction Generale de la Sante
  5. Conseils Regionaux d'Aquitaine et Bourgogne
  6. MGEN
  7. Institut de la Longevite
  8. Fondation de France
  9. Ministry of Research-INSERM Program Cohortes et collections de donnees biologiques
  10. Agence Nationale de la Recherche ANR
  11. Fondation Plan Alzheimer (FCS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: To examine the longitudinal risk of vision loss (VL) or hearing loss (HL) for experiencing suicidal ideation in older adults. Design: The Three-City study, examining data from three waves of follow-up (2006-2008, 2008-2010, and 2010-2012). Setting: Community-dwelling older French adults. Participants: N = 5,438 adults aged 73 years and over. Measurements: Suicidality was assessed by the Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview, Major Depressive Disorder module. Mild VL was defined as Parinaud of 3 or 4 and severe VL as Parinaud >4. Mild HL was self-reported as difficulty understanding a conversation and severe HL as inability to understand a conversation. Results: Severe VL was associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation at baseline (OR = 1.59, 95% CIs = 1.06-2.38) and over five years (OR = 1.65, 95% CIs = 1.05-2.59). Mild and severe HL were associated with an increased risk of suicidal ideation, both at baseline (OR = 1.29, 95% CIs = 1.03-1.63; OR = 1.78, 95% CIs = 1.32-2.40) and over five years (OR = 1.47, 95% CIs = 1.17-1.85; OR = 1.97, 95% CIs = 1.44-2.70). Conclusion: Sensory losses in late life pose a risk for suicidal ideation. Suicidality requires better assessment and intervention in this 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

4.5
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