4.3 Article

The prevalence of anxiety and associated factors in a multiracial sample of older adults

期刊

PSYCHIATRIC SERVICES
卷 57, 期 12, 页码 1719-1725

出版社

AMER PSYCHIATRIC PUBLISHING, INC
DOI: 10.1176/appi.ps.57.12.1719

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01-MH-53453] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Few multiracial epidemiological community-based studies of anxiety have been conducted with older adults. This study examined the prevalence of subsyndromal and syndromal anxiety and associated factors among older persons living in an urban area. Methods: Persons aged 55 years and over (214 Caucasian and 860 black) living in Brooklyn, New York, between 1996 and 1999 were interviewed in randomly selected block groups. The researchers used an adaptation of George's social antecedent model to examine the association of IS variables with anxiety. Syndromal anxiety was defined as a score of 50 or higher on the Anxiety Status Inventory Scale (ASIS). Subsyndromal anxiety was defined as an ASIS score under 50 and a positive response on three or more ASIS items, including at least one worry item. The sample was weighted by race and gender on the basis of 1990 census totals. Results: The prevalence of syndromal and subsyndromal anxiety was 2.3 and 13.3 percent, respectively. With binary logistic regression analysis, persons rated as having syndromal anxiety differed from nonanxious individuals on ten of the 18 variables and persons with subsyndromal anxiety differed on seven. The anxiety groups differed from each other on three variables. in the past year, 23 and 12 percent of persons with syndromal and subsyndromal anxiety, respectively, reported seeking mental health assistance. Conclusions: About 14 percent of older adults have anxiety, and much of it is untreated. Anxious and nonanxious individuals have substantial differences in psychosocial and health-related variables. Older adults who have subsyndromal anxiety can be viewed as distinct from nonanxious older individuals.

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

4.3
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