Mijung Park1, Jürgen Unützer. 1. University of Pittsburgh School of Nursing, Department of Health and Community Systems, Pittsburgh, PA, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Although collaborative care programs are effective in improving late-life depression, only about half of treated patients achieve clinically meaningful improvement. Thus, we need to examine what characteristics may predict poor late-life depression course. Despite the robust evidence for the negative association between the quality of couple relationships and depression outcomes, few studies have examined these associations in the context of long-term late-life depression course. AIM: The objective of this study is to examine the relations between the severity of couple conflict, receiving collaborative depression care program, and 24-months depression outcomes. METHODS: Study sample comprised 840 depressed older adults subsample from the improving mood, promoting access to collaborative treatment for late-life depression trial (IMPACT). Depression and couple conflict were assessed at baseline, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were performed to examine mean 24-month depression-free days (DFD) and the marginal effects of receiving IMAPCT program over usual care among participants with varying degrees of 24-month couple conflict. RESULTS: Compared with those who never endorsed frequent couple conflict over the three observation points, those who did twice had 63 fewer DFD (p = 0.01), and those who did three times experienced 148 fewer DFD (p < 0.001). Although the marginal effects of receiving IMPACT program over usual care was greater in overall sample, it was not statistically significant among those who endorsed frequent conflict at two or three times. CONCLUSION: Frequent couple conflict is associated with worse long-term late-life depression outcomes among the patients in primary care clinics.
BACKGROUND: Although collaborative care programs are effective in improving late-life depression, only about half of treated patients achieve clinically meaningful improvement. Thus, we need to examine what characteristics may predict poor late-life depression course. Despite the robust evidence for the negative association between the quality of couple relationships and depression outcomes, few studies have examined these associations in the context of long-term late-life depression course. AIM: The objective of this study is to examine the relations between the severity of couple conflict, receiving collaborative depression care program, and 24-months depression outcomes. METHODS: Study sample comprised 840 depressed older adults subsample from the improving mood, promoting access to collaborative treatment for late-life depression trial (IMPACT). Depression and couple conflict were assessed at baseline, 12-month, and 24-month follow-up. Descriptive statistics and multivariate regression analyses were performed to examine mean 24-month depression-free days (DFD) and the marginal effects of receiving IMAPCT program over usual care among participants with varying degrees of 24-month couple conflict. RESULTS: Compared with those who never endorsed frequent couple conflict over the three observation points, those who did twice had 63 fewer DFD (p = 0.01), and those who did three times experienced 148 fewer DFD (p < 0.001). Although the marginal effects of receiving IMPACT program over usual care was greater in overall sample, it was not statistically significant among those who endorsed frequent conflict at two or three times. CONCLUSION: Frequent couple conflict is associated with worse long-term late-life depression outcomes among the patients in primary care clinics.
Authors: C F Reynolds; E Frank; J M Perel; S D Imber; C Cornes; M D Miller; S Mazumdar; P R Houck; M A Dew; J A Stack; B G Pollock; D J Kupfer Journal: JAMA Date: 1999-01-06 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Jürgen Unützer; Wayne Katon; Christopher M Callahan; John W Williams; Enid Hunkeler; Linda Harpole; Marc Hoffing; Richard D Della Penna; Polly Hitchcock Noël; Elizabeth H B Lin; Patricia A Areán; Mark T Hegel; Lingqi Tang; Thomas R Belin; Sabine Oishi; Christopher Langston Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-12-11 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Martha L Bruce; Thomas R Ten Have; Charles F Reynolds; Ira I Katz; Herbert C Schulberg; Benoit H Mulsant; Gregory K Brown; Gail J McAvay; Jane L Pearson; George S Alexopoulos Journal: JAMA Date: 2004-03-03 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Gregory E Simon; Michael Von Korff; Evette J Ludman; Wayne J Katon; Carolyn Rutter; Jürgen Unützer; Elizabeth H B Lin; Terry Bush; Edward Walker Journal: Med Care Date: 2002-10 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: David A Brent; Steven M Brunwasser; Steven D Hollon; V Robin Weersing; Gregory N Clarke; John F Dickerson; William R Beardslee; Tracy R G Gladstone; Giovanna Porta; Frances L Lynch; Satish Iyengar; Judy Garber Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2015-11 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Sarah T Stahl; Juleen Rodakowski; Ariel G Gildengers; Charles F Reynolds; Jennifer Q Morse; Kevin Rico; Meryl A Butters Journal: Am J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2017-01-04 Impact factor: 4.105
Authors: Sarah T Stahl; Juleen Rodakowski; Ester M Saghafi; Mijung Park; Charles F Reynolds; Mary Amanda Dew Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2016-01-21 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: Heidemarie Lex; Steven W Nevers; Erica L Jensen; Yarden Ginsburg; Daniel F Maixner; Brian J Mickey Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2021-05-18 Impact factor: 6.533