4.6 Article

ASSOCIATION BETWEEN QUALITY OF LIFE AND SELF-STIGMA, INSIGHT, AND ADVERSE EFFECTS OF MEDICATION IN PATIENTS WITH DEPRESSIVE DISORDERS

期刊

DEPRESSION AND ANXIETY
卷 26, 期 11, 页码 1033-1039

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/da.20413

关键词

quality of life; depression; stigma; insight; adverse effects of medication

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The aims of this study were to examine whether different domains of quality of life (QOL) are differently affected by depressive disorders by comparing QOL of subjects with and without depressive disorders, and to examine the association of QOL with self-stigma, insight and adverse effects of medication among subjects with depressive disorders. Method: The QOL on the four domains of the WHOQOL-BREF Taiwan version were compared between the 229 subjects with depressive disorders and 106 control subjects. Among the depressive subjects, the association between the four QOL domains and subjects' self-stigma, insight, and adverse effects of medication were examined using multiple regression analyses by controlling for the influence of depression, socio-demographic and clinical characteristics and family function. Results: Depressive subjects had poorer QOL on the physical, psychological and social relationship domains than the non-depressive control group. The depressive subjects who had more severe self-stigma bad poorer QOL on all four domains. The depressive subjects who perceived more severe adverse effects from, medication had poorer QOL on the physical, psychological and environmental domains. However, insight was not associated with any domain of QOL in patients with depressive disorders. Conclusions: The results of this study demonstrate that different domains of QOL are differently affected by depressive disorders, and that clinicians must consider the negative influences of self-stigma and adverse effects from medication on QOL of subjects with depressive disorders. Depression and Anxiety 26:1033-1039, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

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

4.6
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