Socio-economic-demographic determinants of depression in Indonesia: A hospital-based study.

The association of socio-economic-demographic (SED; e.g., income-related) factors with depression is widely confirmed in the literature. We conducted a hospital-based case-control study of 160 patients with psychiatrist-diagnosed clinical depression. The control group comprised 160 participants recruited from local communities. We used a questionnaire to collect SED data from all participants. We replaced missing values using multiple imputation analyses and further analyzed the pooled data of five imputations. We also recorded the results from the original analysis and each imputation. Univariate analyses showed income was associated with depression. Multiple logistic regression analyses revealed that, among all SED variables, high income (odds ratio = 2.088 [95% confidence interval = 1.178-3.700]; p = 0.012), middle-level (completed junior or senior high school) education (1.688 [1.042-2.734]; p = 0.033) and cohabitating with four or more family members (1.632 [1.025-2.597]; p = 0.039) were significant predictors for the case group. We conclude that cash income is a determinant of depression in hospital outpatients in Indonesia. This study suggests health policy implications toward better hospital access and service for people with depression in middle- or low-income households, and recommends considering high income as correlated with a high risk of depression, owing to socio-cultural changes.

Introduction

Investigation of the association between socio-economic status (SES) and mental disorders has been a research focus since the 1930s [1-6]. Results have confirmed a relationship between SES and various mental disorders (e.g., depression) in Western societies, leading to hypotheses about “social stress” or “social causation” [7-9].

Depression commonly has a dynamic relationship with SES. There is a negative association at an individual level when surveys of SES have primarily used income as a variable [10-12]; the lower the income, the greater the risk of depression [13-16]. The mechanism may be explained absolutely by one’s ability to secure basic needs (e.g., in purchasing goods and services), including health, or relatively by implying social position and emotional satisfaction in terms of SES producing happiness [11,17,18]. It may also imply the modality of higher income (compared with other modes of SES) having a substantial impact on psychological problems such as depression, mainly at low SES levels [5,11,12,19,20].

However, SES factors such as education and employment have frequently been found associated with depression [9,11,21,22], as have other SES factors [23,24], as well as sociodemographic factors [11,25-29]. Those socio-economic-demographic (SED) factors could be independently [5,30,31] or dependently [3,13,20,22,32-34]—directly or indirectly [12]—associated with depression. There may also be negative societal perception or adverse socio-economic impacts if a person consults with a mental health professional or is hospitalized for a mental disorder in a society that stigmatizes such disorders. Additionally, those with low SES in developing countries may not be able afford medical treatment fees.

Depression is the seventh most common cause of disability in Indonesia, with a high prevalence of 6.1% [35-37]. To our knowledge, while some studies have investigated SED factors related to depression (commonly these are community-based studies) [20,26], there are no reviews of those factors with regard to depression among hospital outpatients (hospital-based study) in Indonesia. Since the implementation of universal health insurance in Indonesia (named Badan Penyelenggara Jaminan Sosial), access to medical facilities has improved for people of low socioeconomic status. However, there may be risks of lost opportunity cost from undergoing medical treatment (e.g., because of time spent for hospitalization or because of prejudice toward patients with depression). It is therefore important to explore characteristics of patients at hospitals.

Materials and methods

Study design and participants

This study was conducted in the city of Makassar in South Sulawesi, Indonesia. The prevalence of depression in South Sulawesi Province is reported as 7.8% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 7.3%–8.4%), higher than the average nationwide prevalence (6.1%) [37].

This study uses a case–control study design, with the case group comprising 160 patients diagnosed with clinical depression at the subject hospital. The control group was recruited by visiting communities within a ~30-minute walk of the Hasanuddin University Hospital and sampled until the number of participants matched the number in the case group; these communities were located in residential areas near the hospital. The total sample was 320 (160 cases, 160 controls), with no significant difference in age (p = 0.089) or sex (p = 0.247) compositions between the two groups.

Instrument and procedures

The medical procedures and subsequent interviews were conducted at general hospitals in Makassar, involving clinical depression outpatients who regularly visit hospitals’ psychiatric departments (regular patients) or first-time/new patients. Psychiatrists diagnosed depression with reference to the third edition of the Indonesian mental disorder guidelines for classification and diagnosis (Pedoman Penggolongan dan Diagnosa Gangguan Jiwa edisi 3). Patients who had been diagnosed with depression (case) were then asked to undergo an interview.

Psychiatrists took about 10–15 minutes to conduct face-to-face interview to each participant. The interview questionnaire (S5 Appendix) collected information about age, sex, ethnicity, individual cash income in the preceding year, educational background (highest educational level completed), occupation, average daily hours of work, number of cohabitating family members, and others. The same questionnaire was given to the control group.

All research was performed after obtaining written informed consent from each participant. This study was approved by the Ministry of Education and Culture (the former Ministry of Research, Technology and Higher Education), Ethics Committee of Medical Research, Indonesia (approval letter number: 01/H4.8.4.5.31/PP36-KOMETIK/2017 to Faculty of Medicine, Hasanuddin University and Hasanuddin University Hospital) and by the Kyoto University Graduate School and Faculty of Medicine, Ethics Committee (G1099 to Graduate School of Asian and African Area Studies, Kyoto University). All participants could refuse to answer any questionnaire item and could withdraw from the research at any time. All participants in both the case and control groups were provided with snacks and beverages, but no remuneration.

Data analysis

Data analyses comprised (1) multiple imputation methods for handling missing values, (2) univariate and bivariate analyses of the variables, and (3) multivariable model analyses.

Missing data and refusals to answer are unavoidable; however, analyses without replacing missing values (i.e., excluding participants with missing values) yield misleading conclusions. Several statistical approaches have been proposed to counteract this [38]. Table 1 shows the proportions of missing values for the SED variables. The greatest amount of missing values (39.06%) was observed for individual cash income. Initially, we performed logical replacement by replacing missing cash income with 0 if the participant, for occupation, answered “unemployed” or answered “housewife” and worked <1 hour per day. This slightly reduced the proportion to 30.94%.

Table 1

Variable and missing values.

Variable	% Missing Values
Income (annual)a	30.94b
Occupation	7.19
Hours worked per day	6.56
Age (years)	3.12
Cohabitating family members	0.62
Education	0.31

a The high missing value percentage for income related to occupation, as many who reported being unemployed or a housewife did not want to provide their income: 94.4% and 58.9%, respectively. Missing values indicated missing at random.

b This figure is after inputting values for missing data with logical consideration (i.e., missing income replaced with 0 for unemployed and for housewives who worked <1 hour per day). Before inputting values, this was 39.06%.

We then conducted multiple imputation analysis as follows. We regarded all missing values as neither caused by complete randomness (missing completely at random) nor by systematic bias (missing not at random), though they can be incorporated using partially observed variables (missing at random [MAR]) [39]. The multiple imputation analyses for MAR were based on a Bayesian approach; the overall association among all SED variables was simulated from the observed values through multiple imputation processes by using a fully conditional specification method [40,41]. For example, we replaced missing cash income values for each occupation with random values that were generated with the same probabilistic distribution of the observed cash income for the respective occupation at each imputation. We replaced the missing values for occupation with random values in accordance with the same probabilistic distribution of the observed occupation. We used fraction of missing information (FMI) and relative efficiency (RE) score to indicate the output of five imputations was appropriate. Scores closest to 0 for FMI and 1 for RE indicated the best output. In this study, we mainly analyzed the average of five imputations as a full set of data, while for the purpose of transparency, we also showed the original data (with missing values) and the result of each imputation (Table 2).

Table 2

Variables, including original data with missing data and after multiple imputations.

Variable	Original Data	Imputations					Fraction of Missing Information	Relative Efficiency
		1	2	3	4	5
Income (annual, IDR)
Mean	30,056,108	30,435,411	30,448,317	30,257,215	30,111,008	30,025,365	0.019	0.996
Standard error of the mean	1,939,228	1,532,283	1,504,881	1,480,188	1,479,880	1,461,166
Occupation (%)
Housewife	30.3	29.7	30.3	30.0	30.0	29.4	0.012	0.998
Retired	4.4	4.7	4.1	4.7	4.1	4.4
Civil servant	11.4	11.6	11.6	11.3	10.9	11.6
Private sector	47.8	47.8	47.8	48.1	48.8	48.4
Unemployed	6.1	6.3	6.3	5.9	6.6	6.3
Hours worked per day (%)
<1	8.7	8.1	9.4	8.4	9.1	9.4	0.042	0.992
1–2	4.7	5.6	4.4	6.3	5.6	5.0
2–4	7.4	8.4	7.8	7.8	7.2	7.5
4–6	20.4	20.0	20.3	20.3	20.6	21.3
6–8	27.8	26.6	28.4	26.6	26.6	27.2
8–10	20.4	20.3	19.4	20.3	19.7	19.4
>10	10.7	10.9	10.3	10.3	11.3	10.3
Age (years)
Mean	42.78	42.58	42.81	42.69	42.79	42.78	0.020	0.996
Standard error of the mean	0.756	0.739	0.737	0.750	0.735	0.736
Cohabitating family members
Mean	4.57	4.58	4.58	4.57	4.54	4.55	0.012	0.998
Standard error of mean	0.146	0.145	0.145	0.145	0.146	0.146
Education (%)
Elementary school or lower	15.7	15.6	15.6	15.6	15.6	15.6	0.003	0.999
Junior high school	15.4	15.3	15.3	15.3	15.3	15.3
Senior high school	27.3	27.2	27.2	27.2	27.5	27.2
Diploma	7.2	7.5	7.2	7.5	7.2	7.2
Graduate	30.4	30.3	30.3	30.3	30.3	30.3
Postgraduate	4.1	4.1	4.4	4.1	4.1	4.4

IDR, Indonesian rupiah.

This output showed FMI and RE score closest to 0 and 1, respectively, for each variable

A maximum of 15 iterations was found to be best after running at a range of 10–50 iterations.

For classifying ethnicities, the major ethnic groups in South Sulawesi Province (Bugis, Makassar, and Toraja) were first defined, and mixed ethnicity included any combination of the three primary groups. Other ethnic groups comprised an additional, “others,” group. We converted all ordinal and continuous data (e.g., education, income) to nominal data. Age and hours worked per day were classified for each quartile.

We used a chi-square (χ2) test for detecting raw associations between the case or control and each variable; continuity correction was applied in the case of 2×2 cross-comparison tables. We also measured the strength of association symmetrically using Phi (φ) and Cramer’s (ν) test, and directionally using Goodman and Kruskal’s lambda (λ) or Goodman and Kruskal’s tau (τ) test as an alternative for proportional reduction in error (PRE) detection.

In further investigation, we used the Mantel–Haenszel method to measure the estimated odds ratio (OR) toward the magnetic SED variable. We compared pooled crude OR with original and complete case analysis (CCA) for greater precision [42]. Finally, we performed multiple logistic regression analysis including all variables in one model to confirm a variable’s effect after adjusting for all other variables.

All data analysis was conducted using IBM SPSS for Windows, Version 26.0 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA).

Results

First, we investigated the sociodemographic characteristics of the case group (patients with depression) compared with those of the control group (Table 3) and (S1 Appendix). No significant between-groups difference was found in age composition or sex. The ethnic composition differed between the groups especially in that the case group had fewer people of mixed ethnicity and more “others.” Among the socio-economic characteristics, only the income level differed between the groups, showing more with “high” income group and fewer with “middle” income for the case group. The strength of symmetric association for ethnicity or income for depression was >0.20. Directionally, income contributed to PRE for depression at 18.1%.

Table 3

Socio-economic-demographic characteristics of participants.

Item	Casea (n = 160)	Controla (n = 160)	χ2b	φ/νc	λ/τd
Socio-demographic characteristic
Age (years)
<32	34.6 (21.6)	43 (26.9)	0.089	-	-
32–42	36.8 (23.0)	51 (31.9)
43–52	44 (27.5)	33 (20.6)
>52	44.6 (27.9)	33 (20.6)
Sex
Male	65 (40.6)	54 (33.8)	0.247	-	-
Female	95 (59.4)	106 (66.3)
Ethnicity
Bugis	57 (35.6)	58 (36.3)	<0.001	0.25	0.063
Makassar	37 (23.1)	47 (29.4)
Toraja	13 (8.1)	8 (5.0)
Mixed	12 (7.5)	30 (18.8)
Others	41 (25.6)	17 (10.6)
Socio-economic characteristic
Income (annual)
High	63 (39.4)	43.8 (27.4)	0.002	0.20	0.181
Middle	39 (24.4)	68 (42.5)
Low	58 (36.3)	48.2 (30.1)
Education levele
High	64.8 (40.5)	69 (43.1)	0.164	-	-
Middle	75.2 (47.0)	61 (38.1)
Low	20 (12.5)	30 (18.8)
Occupation
Housewife	12.6 (7.9)	7.4 (4.6)	0.156	-	-
Civil servant	46.8 (29.3)	48.6 (30.4)
Retired	11 (6.9)	3 (1.9)
Private sector	17.4 (10.9)	19 (11.9)
Unemployed	72.2 (45.1)	82 (51.2)
Hours worked per day
<6	70 (43.8)	66 (41.3)	0.734	-	-
≥6	90 (56.2)	94 (58.8)
Cohabitating family members
0 (alone)	7 (4.4)	12 (7.5)	0.096	-	-
1–3	72.8 (45.6)	86 (53.8)
≥4	80 (50.1)	62 (38.8)

a N (%).

b Continuity correction was applied in case of 2×2 cross-comparison.

c Phi, Cramer’s V test.

d Goodman and Kruskal’s lambda, Goodman and Kruskal’s tau test (%).

e High (S0, S1, S2, or S3), middle (junior or senior high school), and low (elementary school or lower).

We did not put the value for non-significant tests on φ/ν or λ/τ, α = 0.05. All values that appeared on the χ2 test were p-values.

All variables with missing values are presented using pooled frequency after imputations.

Table 4 (and S2 Appendix) shows an association between income and patients with depression. Pooled data (OR = 1.723, [95%CI = 1.076–2.758]) and original and CCA data showed a significant association in high probability of depression for the high-income group.

Table 4

Income and patients with depression (High income vs. lower or middle income).

Income	Depression		p-valuea	Odds Ratio (95% Confidence Interval)
	Case N (%)	Control N (%)
Pooled (n = 320)
High	63 (39.4)	43.8 (27.4)	0.023	1.723 (1.076–2.758)
Middle or low	97 (60.6)	116.2 (72.6)
Original (n = 221)
High	34 (38.2)	33 (25.0)	0.037	1.855 (1.037–3.317)
Middle or low	55 (61.8)	99 (75.0)
Complete case analysis (n = 171)
High	26 (46.4)	32 (27.8)	0.017	2.248 (1.156–4.371)
Middle or low	30 (53.6)	83 (72.2)

aMantel–Haenszel common odds-ratio estimate.

Table 5 (and S3 Appendix) shows the association between high income and the case group, and other SED variables. The greater proportions of high-income patients with depression (case) were >52 years old, female, of Makassar ethnicity, had middle-level education, were private sector workers, and were cohabitating with four or more family.

Table 5

Proportion of high-income participants in different socio-economic-demographic classes, by case and control groups.

Socio-economic Demographic	Income	Casea	Controla
Age (years)
<32	High	15.2 (43.9)	15 (34.9)
	Middle or low	19.4 (56.1)	28 (65.1)
32–42	High	13.4 (36.4)	14.4 (28.2)
	Middle or low	23.4 (63.6)	36.6 (71.8)
43–52	High	15.4 (35.0)	8.2 (24.8)
	Middle or low	28.6 (65.0)	24.8 (75.2)
>52b	High	19 (42.2)	6.2 (18.8)
	Middle or low	25.6 (57.4)	26.8 (81.2)
Sex
Femaleb	High	34 (35.8)	24 (22.6)
	Middle or low	61 (64.2)	82 (77.4)
Male	High	29 (44.6)	20 (37.0)
	Middle or low	36 (55.4)	34 (63.0)
Ethnicity
Bugis	High	21 (36.8)	17 (29.3)
	Middle or low	36 (63.2)	41 (70.7)
Makassarb	High	15 (40.5)	9 (19.1)
	Middle or low	22 (59.5)	38 (80.9)
Toraja	High	4 (30.8)	5 (62.5)
	Middle or low	9 (69.2)	3 (37.5)
Mixed	High	7 (58.3)	9 (30.0)
	Middle or low	5 (41.7)	21 (70.0)
Others	High	17 (41.5)	4 (23.5)
	Middle or low	24 (58.5)	13 (76.5)
Education level
High	High	35.2 (54.3)	34.4 (49.9)
	Middle or low	29.6 (45.7)	34.6 (50.1)
Middleb	High	22.2 (29.5)	6.6 (10.8)
	Middle or low	53 (70.5)	54.4 (89.2)
Low	High	5.6 (28.0)	2.8 (10.8)
	Middle or low	14.4 (72.0)	27.2 (90.7)
Occupation
Housewife	High	8.8 (18.8)	3.6 (7.4)
	Middle or low	38 (81.2)	45 (92.6)
Civil Servant	High	10 (57.5)	9 (47.4)
	Middle or low	7.4 (42.5)	10 (52.6)
Retired	High	7.4 (67.3)	3 (100)
	Middle or low	3.6 (32.7)	0 (0)
Private sectorb	High	36.2 (50.1)	28 (34.1)
	Middle or low	36 (49.9)	54 (65.9)
Unemployed	High	0.6 (4.8)	0.2 (2.7)
	Middle or low	12 (95.2)	7.2 (97.3)
Hours worked per day
<6	High	22 (31.4)	13 (19.7)
	Middle or low	48 (68.6)	53 (80.3)
≥6	High	41 (45.6)	30.8 (32.8)
	Middle or low	49 (54.4)	63.2 (67.2)
Cohabitating family members
0	High	2.4 (34.3)	3.2 (26.7)
	Middle or low	4.6 (65.7)	8.8 (73.3)
1–3	High	29.6 (40.7)	27 (31.4)
	Middle or low	43.2 (59.3)	59 (68.6)
≥4b	High	30.8 (38.5)	13.6 (21.9)
	Middle or low	49.2 (61.5)	48.4 (78.1)

a N (%)

b p<0.05 chi-square test

All variables with missing data are presented using pooled frequency after imputations.

Table 6 (and S4 Appendix) shows the results of the multiple logistic regression analyses. Among all SED variables, high income (OR = 2.088 [95%CI = 1.178–3.700]), middle-level education (1.688 [1.042–2.734]), and cohabitating with four or more family members (1.632 [1.025–2.597]) were significant predictors of depression.

Table 6

Multiple logistic regression analysis of socio-economic-demographic determinants related to depression.

Socio-economic Demographic	Coefficient	Standard Error	p-value	Odds Ratio	95% Confidence Interval
Age (>52 years)	0.381	0.289	0.187	1.464	0.831–2.579
Sex (female)	−0.243	0.255	0.340	0.784	0.476–1.293
Ethnicity (Makassar)	−0.331	0.273	0.225	0.718	0.421–1.226
Education (middle-level)	0.524	0.246	0.033	1.688	1.042–2.734
Income (high)	0.736	0.289	0.012	2.088	1.178–3.700
Occupation (private sector)	−0.289	0.268	0.281	0.749	0.443–1.267
Hours worked per day (≥6)	−0.086	0.266	0.747	0.918	0.545–1.547
Cohabitating family members (≥4)	0.490	0.237	0.039	1.632	1.025–2.597

All variables with missing data are presented using pooled frequency after imputations.

Discussion

The results suggest that income has a substantial impact on depression [5,10,12]. High-income status was related to a greater risk of depression then was lower or middle income, even after adjusting with other SEDs. This is despite many studies having suggested that high income does not correlate with a high risk for depression, such as in it facilitating the ability to manage and cope with financial stress and to foster individual and social well-being [5,10-12,18-20,22,43-46].

This study had limitations in the frequency of missing values for cash income. Income has typically been a limitation to competing questionnaires, but exclusion either of participants with the missing values in the data or the income variable may cause substantial bias [27,47]; accordingly, multiple imputation methods for missing values have been recommended [38]. The results in the present study were consistent among the original data and each imputation; therefore, we can reasonably deem that the results from the pooled data of the five imputations were reliable. There are various reasons participants were reluctant and even embarrassed to inform of their income [27,47]. We sought to avert that, though we did not entirely succeed. Some studies have shown similar experiences and it was validated by Mossakowski [9].

Another limitation was the difficulty sampling control participants to match the case participants. We initially attempted to recruit control participants with identical neighborhood characteristics to the case sample. However, most individuals declined to participate because they lived too far away from the hospital. As an alternative approach, we recruited participants by visiting communities close to the hospital. Thus, the control participants may have had different neighborhood characteristics to the case participants. Although there were no significant differences in age or sex between the groups, the difference in the ethnicity may owe to sampling bias. Ethnicity only differed for mixed ethnicity or “others,” but not among the major ethnic groups (Bugis, Makassar, and Toraja). Our analyses regarded ethnicity as a confounding factor in the final model (Table 6), rather than the explanatory variable. Despite the study’s potential limitations, we deemed the final result showing effects of income, education, and the number of cohabitating family members on patients with depression to be reliable.

Since implementing a national social security system (Sistem Jaminan Sosial Nasional for health care in 2014 in Indonesia, all citizens acquired de facto no-cost primary care consultation at hospitals. However, accessing hospitals involves other costs, such as transportation [48-51]. There is also an opportunity cost that citizens lose by visiting a hospital; e.g., day laborers will lose 1 day of income for every day they visit a hospital [52] and ordinary employees with lower earned income hesitated to take leave for mental disorders [53].

All the above factors might have led to the indication that patients with depression were more likely to have higher income. These findings raise a critical issue about how lower income people experience and express depression and common care-seeking pathways. Although few studies have examined this issue, symptoms of depression are often not recognized as a treatable medical condition among individuals with lower socioeconomic status and/or lower levels of education in Indonesia (Byron Good, personal communication). Presumably, some individuals in this group experience depression symptoms, but their condition may not be recognized as a treatable medical disease [52]. In addition, depression may be expressed in local cultural and religious terms [54]. Hence, people in such conditions may prefer to receive treatment from traditional or spiritual healers rather than going to the hospital [55]. In some cases, restraints are still used for treating severe depression in this group [56]. The bivariate analyses (Table 5) and multiple regression analyses (Table 6) also revealed that patients with depression most commonly had achieved a middle level of education and/or cohabitated with a larger number of family members. This may indicate that education could increase expectations [33] toward achieving a certain income threshold in the community (a perception of economic position) posing a more substantial goal for patients with depression to achieve, thus creating a complex situation, as ten Kate et al. noted in the context of cultural entitlement [17], while also requiring more family members to bear the expenses and care for these patients. These can be regarded as exclusive characteristics regarding depression among hospital outpatients.

Another possible interpretation involves social causation [9], in that high income itself is related to higher risk of depression [25,57,58]. It should be noted that our income analysis used personal income, which reflects personal social and economic status. Unexpectedly, the current findings revealed that high personal income did not protect individuals from depression. Instead, high personal income may have caused depression independently [59,60], in accord with a phenomenon known as the Easterlin Paradox [61,62]. Previous studies have reported that individuals may have a high income but still experience financial pressure and even hold high levels of debt [9,25] because of loss-aversion, which causes them to experience hardship and lead to depression [63]. Individuals’ inability to reach a certain income threshold within the social groups in which they live may fail to meet exceptionally high standards, which may be a particular problem when compared with what exists in other groups [5,18]. This is also called “relative deprivation” [14]. Hence, the implications of relative income related to the “fear of losing status” may be correlated with the occurrence of depression.

The phenomenon described above occurs more commonly in Western societies [18,25,64]. We argue this may be the effect of an “evolutionary mismatch” [65] or “evolutionary cleft stick” [66] phenomenon via modernity like that which takes place in Western societies (e.g., competition) [67,68] and is already being mirrored in Indonesian society (e.g., Makassar society) [69]. In Indonesia, therefore, there is an association between income and depression, in which high relative income may impact the high risk of depression because of the effects of socio-cultural transformation.

In the discussion above, we critically assessed possible explanations for the correlation between high income and depression, either as an exclusive determinant at the hospital due to the lack of access of lower income people to the hospital, or through relative social causation related to socio-cultural transition. Thus, this study proposes that the government of Indonesia reevaluate the effectiveness of hospital-based service in terms of (more) coverage of service and access for low- and middle-income households (e.g., cost, health insurance, procedures). Future research should examine hospital-related paradigms in society (i.e., lower or middle society) in depth and investigate why socio-cultural transformation causes some high income individuals to be at greater risk of depression.

Conclusions

Cash income appears to be a determinant of depression in outpatients in hospitals in Indonesia. This study offers health policy implications toward enabling better hospital access and service for people with depression in low- or middle-income households, and recommendations for considering high income (and SED) as a determinant for high risk of depression occurrence, due to socio-culture transition.

Original and imputation results for socio-economic-demographic variables with missing value in Table 3.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Original and imputation results for socio-economic-demographic variables with missing value (income) in Table 4.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Original and imputation results for socio-economic-demographic variables with missing values in Table 5.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Original and imputation results for socio-economic-demographic variables with missing values in Table 6.

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

Form for basic information interview (Indonesian and English version).

(DOCX)

Click here for additional data file.

22 Sep 2020

PONE-D-20-17192

Socio-economic-demographic determinants of depression in Indonesia: A hospital-based study

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Mumang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Nov 06 2020 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Antonio Palazón-Bru, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: This study compares a sample of persons being treated in hospital-based psychiatric outpatient clinics in Makassar, Indonesia, with a matched randomly selected population of persons living within a 30 minute walk of the university hospital. The study is important for two reasons. First, there is so little research on depression in Indonesia (the 4th most populous nation in the world), compared with studies of depression in most societies in the world, and compared with studies of psychotic illness in Indonesia. It is thus very welcome to find a study examining basic characteristics of persons being treated for major depressive disorder in a psychiatric outpatient setting Makassar. Second, the study is important because the most crucial finding of the study -- that persons being treated for depression in this sample has higher income than in the control population -- is unexpected and counterintuitive. It thus raises important questions for further study, suggesting in particular the need for further population-based studies in Indonesia, as well as studies of care-seeking patterns and access to care for persons with depressive illnesses.

There is a great deal of focus on methodology, in particular methods for dealing with missing values (particularly for individual income), in this study. Overall, I leave it for others to discuss the statistical procedures. However, I do wonder why the study gathered information about individual income rather than household income. Because wealth and social status accrue to households, not individuals, particularly in Indonesia, there may be conflation of income and gender (although number of 'housewives' is quite low). One other methodological issue -- in selecting the comparison population. It seems that data were not collected about where the patient population resides in Makassar, and whether the neighborhood "within a 30 minute walk" is indeed a good comparison. We know that major cities in Indonesia are stratified by neighborhoods. It would be useful for the authors to add a note to indicate whether the neighborhoods around the university hospital have particular characteristics and whether most of the patients come from this same area.

I appreciate the hypotheses the authors considered in explaining why this treated population has higher income than the comparison population. These are important hypotheses that should indeed generate future studies. And the suggestion that the public health services need to focus more attention on identifying and treating depression among lower income groups is an important one -- and suggests further studies of how best to do this.

This then raises one critical issue that should be added to the discussion session. In what ways do persons from lower SES groups experience and express major depression, and what are the common pathways for care-seeking among these groups? There is remarkably little research on this topic in Indonesia, compared with many parts of the world. However, as an anthropologist who has worked on issues of mental illness in Indonesia for years, I would say that symptoms of depression are often not recognized as a treatable medical condition among many persons in lower socioeconomic and lower educated groups. To the extent they are viewed as illness, they are often treated in the popular and religious healing sectors rather than conceived as matters for treatment through medical settings. The primary health care system has recently been mandated to provide care for persons with severe mental illness in Indonesia, but there is no mandate to recognize and treat depression. Rates of recorded depression in medical records in the public primary health clinics are extremely low. My point is simply that in the discussion session, where the authors consider critical hypotheses for explaining an important unexpected finding, this set of issues should be recognized and put on the agenda for future research.

Overall, I find this an important paper that with minor revisions should be published.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: Yes: Prof. Byron Good, Dept of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

24 Oct 2020

Response to Editor’s comments:

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

Response: We carefully checked our manuscript and made corresponding changes to meet the journal’s style requirements.

2. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses. For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information

Response: We have included our interview form in both languages as supporting information, labelled as S5 in the Appendix.

Response to Reviewer’s comments:

Part 1. This study compares a sample of persons being treated in hospital-based psychiatric outpatient clinics in Makassar, Indonesia, with a matched randomly selected population of persons living within a 30 minute walk of the university hospital. The study is important for two reasons. First, there is so little research on depression in Indonesia (the 4th most populous nation in the world), compared with studies of depression in most societies in the world, and compared with studies of psychotic illness in Indonesia. It is thus very welcome to find a study examining basic characteristics of persons being treated for major depressive disorder in a psychiatric outpatient setting Makassar. Second, the study is important because the most crucial finding of the study -- that persons being treated for depression in this sample has higher income than in the control population -- is unexpected and counterintuitive. It thus raises important questions for further study, suggesting in particular the need for further population-based studies in Indonesia, as well as studies of care-seeking patterns and access to care for persons with depressive illnesses (paragraph 1).

I appreciate the hypotheses the authors considered in explaining why this treated population has higher income than the comparison population. These are important hypotheses that should indeed generate future studies. And the suggestion that the public health services need to focus more attention on identifying and treating depression among lower income groups is an important one -- and suggests further studies of how best to do this (paragraph 3).

Response: We thank the reviewer for their positive comments regarding our research.

Part 2. There is a great deal of focus on methodology, in particular methods for dealing with missing values (particularly for individual income), in this study. Overall, I leave it for others to discuss the statistical procedures. However, I do wonder why the study gathered information about individual income rather than household income. Because wealth and social status accrue to households, not individuals, particularly in Indonesia, there may be conflation of income and gender (although number of 'housewives' is quite low).

Response: Household income is appropriate for measuring an individual’s household wealth and social status in society, but does not necessarily reflect their personal social status. In addition, household income is not always known by all household members (e.g., a patient with depression patient may not be aware of the income of other household members).

Personal income is known to influence the specific opinions and decisions of individuals (Kuhn, 2019)* . According to Ross and Huber (1985)** :

“Personal earnings, by adding to family income, decrease economic hardship and depression. But personal earnings, independently of their purely financial aspects, may also affect depression. Family (or households) income, from whatever source – a spouse's earnings, social security, or public assistance – is important to psychological well-being because it allows one to pay the bills, and feed, clothe, and care for the health of one’s family. But the money one earns oneself may affect well-being in other ways (p. 315)”.

In addition, the introduction section of our manuscript describes a similar issue:

“The mechanism (of income cause depression) may be explained absolutely by one’s ability to secure basic needs (e.g., in purchasing goods and services), including health, or relatively by implying social position and emotional satisfaction in terms of SES producing happiness (p. 3; line 59-62)”.

Thus, we felt that it was better to gather information about personal income than household income to understand better how people think or decide (absolute vs. relative), and how their income affects their mental health. However, we thank the reviewer for raising this point, and we apologize that we did not describe this issue clearly in the previous version of the manuscript. We have addressed this issue in more depth in the revised discussion section (p. 16-17; line 271-278).

*Kuhn, U. (2019). Measurement of income in surveys. FORS Guide No. 02, Version 1.0. Lausanne: Swiss Centre of Expertise in the Social Sciences FORS. doi:10.24449/FG-2019- 00002

**Ross CE, Huber J. Hardship and depression. J Health Soc Behav. 1985;26(4):312–27. Availabe at: https://www.jstor.org/stable/2136655

Part 3. One other methodological issue -- in selecting the comparison population. It seems that data were not collected about where the patient population resides in Makassar, and whether the neighborhood "within a 30 minute walk" is indeed a good comparison. We know that major cities in Indonesia are stratified by neighborhoods. It would be useful for the authors to add a note to indicate whether the neighborhoods around the university hospital have particular characteristics and whether most of the patients come from this same area.

Response: In the discussion section, we described the difficulty of matching case and control participants as a limitation. However, in the previous version of the manuscript, we did not explain why we chose participants from communities “within a 30-minute walk” for comparison with the case participants, which represents a potential limitation of the current study. We initially attempted to recruit control participants in a way that closely matched the neighborhood characteristics of the case group; however, most individuals refused to participate because of difficulties related to distance. As an alternative method, we searched communities that were located close to the hospital, which we assumed would have similar characteristics to the case group. Nevertheless, we agree that this issue should be clearly discussed as a limitation in the manuscript. Thus, we have added an explanation to address this issue in the revised discussion section (p. 14-15; line 232-236).

Part 4. This then raises one critical issue that should be added to the discussion session. In what ways do persons from lower SES groups experience and express major depression, and what are the common pathways for care-seeking among these groups? There is remarkably little research on this topic in Indonesia, compared with many parts of the world. However, as an anthropologist who has worked on issues of mental illness in Indonesia for years, I would say that symptoms of depression are often not recognized as a treatable medical condition among many persons in lower socioeconomic and lower educated groups. To the extent they are viewed as illness, they are often treated in the popular and religious healing sectors rather than conceived as matters for treatment through medical settings. The primary health care system has recently been mandated to provide care for persons with severe mental illness in Indonesia, but there is no mandate to recognize and treat depression. Rates of recorded depression in medical records in the public primary health clinics are extremely low. My point is simply that in the discussion session, where the authors consider critical hypotheses for explaining an important unexpected finding, this set of issues should be recognized and put on the agenda for future research.

Overall, I find this an important paper that with minor revisions should be published.

Response: We thank the reviewer for raising this critical issue about how people with lower incomes experience and express depression, and their common care-seeking pathways. We agree with the reviewer’s suggestion regarding the possible explanations of this issue, and have elaborated on this point in the discussion section (p. 15-16; line 251-260). Furthermore, we realize that it is important to consider a critical hypothesis for explaining this important and unexpected finding. Therefore, we modified our discussion of this point at the end of the discussion section. With Professor Good’s permission, we would like to cite the reviewer’s comment itself as personal communication with Professor Byron Good, because we feel that this insight from an anthropological perspective is valuable.

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.docx

Click here for additional data file.

3 Dec 2020

Socio-economic-demographic determinants of depression in Indonesia: A hospital-based study

PONE-D-20-17192R1

Dear Dr. Mumang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Antonio Palazón-Bru, PhD

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: I Don't Know

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have responded appropriately to my questions.

Overall, I continue to believe this is an important study and should be published.

One very small item: On pp 2-3, lines 54-56, the authors say that depression is almost non-existent in hunter gatherer or 'traditionally collectivist societies'. I suggest that either the authors add a reference to this, or simply omit this sentence. It is not important to the study here, and is a matter of some controversy. In particular, I would say that the term 'traditionally collectivist societies' would require definition and referencing to understand what is being claimed. This is not important -- not important to the study, and not a critical matter. However, I would just say the matter is controversial and probably better not to be stated as though it is a known fact.

I am happy to have my name referenced as 'personal communication' concerning the issue of depression not being viewed as a treatable medical condition among many Indonesians, which in turn has a strong effect on care-seeking patterns (and in particular whether they would seek care for such a condition in a hospital outpatient clinic).

On p 16, lines 257-258, I would not use the phrase 'cultural context of animism' (whatever that means). Many persons who are devout Muslims seek help from a variety of healers, including Islamic healers, for symptoms which might be diagnosed as depression (though being a devout Muslim and 'animist' may be quite compatible). I would simply say 'may be expressed in local cultural and religious terms'.

Final note: there are times that the authors write as though they have found prevalence rates of depression to be higher among persons with higher income (e.g. in lines 283-289) in Makassar, Indonesia. I believe the findings indicate a link between rates of depression and higher income higher among persons who seek care in a hospital outpatient clinic. What this method cannot tell us is whether this is true of the population in general, or is the result of care-seeking, in particular differential patterns of care-seeking among those with higher and lower incomes. Running throughout the paper is a general suggestion that this study suggests that higher income may cause higher rates of depression in Makassar, without the qualification that the findings may be accounted for by either care-seeking patterns or differential risk for depression among individuals with higher income in the population. If I am correct in my interpretation of the findings, and if the authors agree, they may want to examine the language in the paper that at times seems to suggest this is true of the population at large rather than of a particular clinical sample.

None of this lessens my enthusiasm for publication of this paper.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

7 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-17192R1

Socio-economic-demographic determinants of depression in Indonesia: A hospital-based study

Dear Dr. Mumang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Antonio Palazón-Bru

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE