4.5 Article

A 5-year prospective study of predictors for disability pension among patients with major depressive disorder

期刊

ACTA PSYCHIATRICA SCANDINAVICA
卷 125, 期 4, 页码 325-334

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1600-0447.2011.01785.x

关键词

major depressive disorder; work disability; disability pension

资金

  1. Academy of Finland
  2. pharmaceutical companies, in a congress meeting abroad (GSK)
  3. Eli Lilly
  4. Lundbeck
  5. Servier
  6. Astra Zeneca
  7. BMS
  8. H. Lundbeck
  9. Janssen-Cilag

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: There is a scarcity of prospective long-term studies on work disability caused by depression. We investigated predictors for disability pension among psychiatric patients with MDD. Method: The Vantaa Depression Study followed up prospectively 269 psychiatric in-and out-patients with DSM-IV MDD for 5 years with a life chart, including 230 (91.3%) patients belonging to labour force. Information on disability pensions was obtained from interviews, patient records and registers. Results: Within 5 years, 20% of the patients belonging to labour force at baseline were granted a disability pension. In multivariate analyses, the significant baseline predictors for granted disability pension were age 50 years (HR = 3.91, P < 0.001), subjective inability to work (HR = 2.14, P = 0.008) and introversion (HR = 1.08, P = 0.049). When follow-up variables were included, the predictors were age more than 50 (OR = 6.25, P < 0.001), proportion of time spent depressed (OR = 14.6, P < 0.001), number of comorbid somatic disorders (OR = 1.47, P = 0.013) and lack of vocational education (OR = 2.38, P = 0.032). Conclusion: Of psychiatric patients with depression, one-fifth were granted a disability pension within 5 years. Future disability pension can be predicted by baseline older age, personality factors, functional disability, lack of vocational education and comorbid somatic disorders. Longitudinally, accumulation of time spent depressed appears decisive for pensioning.

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