Linnea Sjöberg1, Björn Karlsson2, Anna-Rita Atti3, Ingmar Skoog4, Laura Fratiglioni5, Hui-Xin Wang6. 1. Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. Electronic address: Linnea.Sjoberg@ki.se. 2. Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden. 3. Department of Biomedical and NeuroMotor Sciences, University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy. 4. Neuropsychiatric Epidemiology Unit, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, Sahlgrenska Academy at the University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg, Sweden. 5. Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; Stockholm Gerontology Research Center, Stockholm, Sweden. 6. Aging Research Center, Department of Neurobiology, Care Sciences and Society, Karolinska Institutet and Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden; Stress Research Institute, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Depression prevalence in older adults varies largely across studies, which probably reflects methodological rather than true differences. This study aims to explore whether and to what extent the prevalence of depression varies when using different diagnostic criteria and rating scales, and various samples of older adults. METHODS: A population-based sample of 3353 individuals aged 60-104 years from the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) were examined in 2001-2004. Point prevalence of depression was estimated by: 1) diagnostic criteria, ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR/DSM-5; 2) rating scales, MADRS and GDS-15; and 3) self-report. Depression prevalence in sub-samples by dementia status, living place, and socio-demographics were compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of any depression (including all severity grades) was 4.2% (moderate/severe: 1.6%) for ICD-10 and 9.3% (major: 2.1%) for DSM-IV-TR; 10.6% for MADRS and 9.2% for GDS-15; and 9.1% for self-report. Depression prevalence was lower in the dementia-free sample as compared to the total population. Furthermore, having poor physical function, or not having a partner were independently associated with higher depression prevalence, across most of the depression definitions. LIMITATIONS: The response rate was 73.3% and this may have resulted in an underestimation of depression. CONCLUSION: Depression prevalence was similar across all depression definitions except for ICD-10, showing much lower figures. However, independent of the definition used, depression prevalence varies greatly by dementia status, physical functioning, and marital status. These findings may be useful for clinicians when assessing depression in older adults and for researchers when exploring and comparing depression prevalence across studies.
BACKGROUND:Depression prevalence in older adults varies largely across studies, which probably reflects methodological rather than true differences. This study aims to explore whether and to what extent the prevalence of depression varies when using different diagnostic criteria and rating scales, and various samples of older adults. METHODS: A population-based sample of 3353 individuals aged 60-104 years from the Swedish National Study on Aging and Care in Kungsholmen (SNAC-K) were examined in 2001-2004. Point prevalence of depression was estimated by: 1) diagnostic criteria, ICD-10 and DSM-IV-TR/DSM-5; 2) rating scales, MADRS and GDS-15; and 3) self-report. Depression prevalence in sub-samples by dementia status, living place, and socio-demographics were compared. RESULTS: The prevalence of any depression (including all severity grades) was 4.2% (moderate/severe: 1.6%) for ICD-10 and 9.3% (major: 2.1%) for DSM-IV-TR; 10.6% for MADRS and 9.2% for GDS-15; and 9.1% for self-report. Depression prevalence was lower in the dementia-free sample as compared to the total population. Furthermore, having poor physical function, or not having a partner were independently associated with higher depression prevalence, across most of the depression definitions. LIMITATIONS: The response rate was 73.3% and this may have resulted in an underestimation of depression. CONCLUSION:Depression prevalence was similar across all depression definitions except for ICD-10, showing much lower figures. However, independent of the definition used, depression prevalence varies greatly by dementia status, physical functioning, and marital status. These findings may be useful for clinicians when assessing depression in older adults and for researchers when exploring and comparing depression prevalence across studies.
Authors: Mohammadreza Mohebbi; Bruno Agustini; Robyn L Woods; John J McNeil; Mark R Nelson; Raj C Shah; Van Nguyen; Elsdon Storey; Anne M Murray; Christopher M Reid; Brenda Kirpach; Rory Wolfe; Jessica E Lockery; Michael Berk Journal: Int J Geriatr Psychiatry Date: 2019-05-08 Impact factor: 3.485
Authors: M K Borges; C V Romanini; N A Lima; M Petrella; D L da Costa; V N An; B N Aguirre; J R Galdeano; I C Fernandes; J F Cecato; E C Robello; R C Oude Voshaar; I Aprahamian Journal: J Nutr Health Aging Date: 2021 Impact factor: 4.075
Authors: Manka Nkimbeng; Nwakaego A Nmezi; Zachary G Baker; Janiece L Taylor; Yvonne Commodore-Mensah; Tetyana P Shippee; Sarah L Szanton; Joseph E Gaugler Journal: Clin Gerontol Date: 2021-09-16 Impact factor: 2.871
Authors: Alvaro García-Pérez; Alvaro Edgar González-Aragón Pineda; Bayron Alexander Sandoval-Bonilla; Luis Pablo Cruz-Hervert Journal: Salud Publica Mex Date: 2022-06-29
Authors: Shawn M McClintock; Lex Minto; David A Denney; K Chase Bailey; C Munro Cullum; Vonetta M Dotson Journal: Curr Psychiatry Rep Date: 2021-07-13 Impact factor: 8.081