Literature DB >> 28928223

Psychological distress and ischaemic heart disease: cause or consequence? Evidence from a large prospective cohort study.

Jennifer Welsh1, Rosemary J Korda1, Grace Joshy1, Peter Butterworth2,3, Alex Brown4,5, Emily Banks1,6.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Ischaemic heart disease (IHD) incidence is elevated in people reporting psychological distress. The extent to which this relationship is causal or related to reverse causality-that is, undiagnosed disease causing distress-is unclear. We quantified the relationship between psychological distress and IHD, with consideration of confounding and undiagnosed disease.
METHODS: Questionnaire data (2006-2009) from 151 811 cardiovascular disease-free and cancer-free Australian general population members aged ≥45years (45 and Up Study) were linked to hospitalisation and mortality data, to December 2013. A two-stage approach estimated HRs for incident IHD (IHD-related hospitalisation or death) for low (Kessler-10 scores: 10-<12), mild (12-<16), moderate (16-<22) and high (22-50) psychological distress, adjusting for demographic and behavioural characteristics, and then restricting to those with no/minor functioning limitations (likely free from undiagnosed disease).
RESULTS: Over 859 396 person-years, 5230 incident IHD events occurred (rate: 6.09/1000person-years). IHD risk was increased for mild (age-adjusted and sex-adjusted HR: 1.18, 95% CI 1.11 to 1.26), moderate (1.36, 1.25 to 1.47), and high (1.69, 1.52 to 1.88) versus low distress. HRs attenuated to 1.15 (1.08 to 1.22), 1.26 (1.16 to 1.37) and 1.41 (1.26 to 1.57) after adjustment for demographic and behavioural characteristics and were further attenuated by 35%-41% in those with no/minor limitations, leaving a significant but relatively weak dose-response relationship: 1.11 (1.02 to 1.20), 1.21 (1.08 to 1.37) and 1.24 (1.02 to 1.51) for mild, moderate and high versus low distress, respectively. The observed adjustment-related attenuation suggests measurement error/residual confounding likely contribute to the remaining association.
CONCLUSION: A substantial part of the distress-IHD association is explained by confounding and functional limitations, an indicator of undiagnosed disease. Emphasis should be on psychological distress as a marker of healthcare need and IHD risk, rather than a causative factor. © Article author(s) (or their employer(s) unless otherwise stated in the text of the article) 2017. All rights reserved. No commercial use is permitted unless otherwise expressly granted.

Entities:  

Keywords:  mental health

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28928223     DOI: 10.1136/jech-2017-209535

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Epidemiol Community Health        ISSN: 0143-005X            Impact factor:   3.710


  4 in total

1.  Identifying long-term psychological distress from single measures: evidence from a nationally representative longitudinal survey of the Australian population.

Authors:  J Welsh; R J Korda; E Banks; L Strazdins; G Joshy; P Butterworth
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2020-03-05       Impact factor: 4.615

2.  Multicohort study of change in job strain, poor mental health and incident cardiometabolic disease.

Authors:  Linda L Magnusson Hanson; Naja Hulvej Rod; Jussi Vahtera; Paraskevi Peristera; Jaana Pentti; Reiner Rugulies; Ida Elisabeth Huitfeldt Madsen; Anthony D LaMontagne; Allison Milner; Theis Lange; Sakari Suominen; Sari Stenholm; Tianwei Xu; Mika Kivimäki; Hugo Westerlund
Journal:  Occup Environ Med       Date:  2019-09-05       Impact factor: 4.402

3.  Does psychological distress directly increase risk of incident cardiovascular disease? Evidence from a prospective cohort study using a longer-term measure of distress.

Authors:  Jennifer Welsh; Emily Banks; Grace Joshy; Peter Butterworth; Lyndall Strazdins; Rosemary J Korda
Journal:  BMJ Open       Date:  2021-02-16       Impact factor: 2.692

4.  Does Twitter language reliably predict heart disease? A commentary on Eichstaedt et al. (2015a).

Authors:  Nicholas J L Brown; James C Coyne
Journal:  PeerJ       Date:  2018-09-21       Impact factor: 2.984

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.