4.5 Article

Psychosocial and clinical predictors of unipolar depression outcome in older adults

期刊

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/gps.590

关键词

major unipolar depression; psychosocial factors; clinical factors; remission

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 51191, MH 01367] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [K07MH001367] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background This study examined psychosocial and clinical predictors of depression non-remittance among, a sample of initially clinically depressed elders,. Methods Incident and prevalent unipolar depression cases (n - 106) were enrolled into the MHCRC for the Study of Depression in Late Life and followed for 12 month,, while undergoing, treatment using a standardized algorithm, The outcome was remission vs non-remission (<6 vs >7 on the Montgomery-Asberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS)) at one-year follow-up. Baseline predictor variables included psychosocial factors, such as four domains of social support, basic and instrumental activities of daily living (ADLs). and clinical factors, which included use of ECT, past history of depression. comorbidities, and antidepressant treatment. Results At one-year follow-up 45% of the sample as in remission based upon MADRS scores. In bivariate analyses, non-remitted patients, were more likely at baseline to use benzodiazepines, anxiolytic/sedatives, and/or MAO inhibitors than patients in remission. and have more depressive episodes. Among psychosocial factors, non-remitted patients had at baseline, more ADL and IADL problems and decreased subjective social support a compared to patients in remission. In logistic regression analyses more depression episodes, using anxiolytic/sedatives, more IADL problem and decreased subjective social support predicted poor depression outcome after one-year. Conclusions While clinical and diagnostic,ariables ere related to impi-mernent, baseline p,,ychosocial factors Were also important. Copyright (C) 2002 John Wile Sons. Ltd.

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