Yajie Bi1,2, Li Wang3,4, Chengqi Cao1,5, Ruojiao Fang1,2, Gen Li1,2, Ping Liu6, Shu Luo6, Haibo Yang7, Brian J Hall8. 1. Laboratory for Traumatic Stress Studies, CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 16 Lincui Road, Beijing, 100101, China. 2. Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. 3. Laboratory for Traumatic Stress Studies, CAS Key Laboratory of Mental Health, Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, 16 Lincui Road, Beijing, 100101, China. wangli1@psych.ac.cn. 4. Department of Psychology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. wangli1@psych.ac.cn. 5. Shenzhen Key Laboratory of Affective and Social Cognitive Science, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen, China. 6. People's Hospital of Deyang City, Deyang, Sichuan, China. 7. Academy of Psychology and Behavior, Tianjin Normal University, Tianjin, China. 8. Global and Community Mental Health Research Group, New York University (Shanghai), Pudong, Shanghai, China.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Experiencing natural disasters is associated with common mental disorders including major depressive disorder (MDD). However, the latent structure of MDD is widely debated, and few studies tested the MDD factor structure in Chinese natural disaster survivors. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the factorial validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for DSM-5 major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms in Chinese earthquake survivors. METHOD: Participants were 1058 Chinese earthquake survivors. Self-reported measures included the PHQ-9 and the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to examine the latent structure of MDD and the associations between latent factors of MDD and different domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), respectively. RESULTS: In the current sample, the model consisted of somatic and cognitive/affective (non-somatic) factors demonstrated significantly better fit than the other competing MDD models (χ2 = 173.89, df = 26, CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.073, BIC = 18,091.13). Further SEM analyses indicated that the non-somatic factor was significantly related to both physical (β = - 0.362, p < .01) and psychosocial HRQoL (β = - 0.773, p < .01), while the somatic factor was a uniquely predictor of physical HRQoL (β = - 0.336, p < .01). Furthermore, we found the somatic factor partially mediated the relationship between the cognitive/affective factor and physical HRQoL (all ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The MDD symptoms was best captured by a two-factor model comprised of somatic and cognitive/affective factors in Chinese natural disaster survivors. The two MDD factors were differentially associated with physical and psychosocial HRQoL, and the cognitive/affective factor associated physical HRQoL partially through the somatic factor. The current findings increase our understanding of latent structure of MDD symptoms, and carry implications for assessment and intervention of post-disaster mental health problems.
BACKGROUND: Experiencing natural disasters is associated with common mental disorders including major depressive disorder (MDD). However, the latent structure of MDD is widely debated, and few studies tested the MDD factor structure in Chinese natural disaster survivors. Therefore, the aim of the current study was to evaluate the factorial validity of the Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ-9) for DSM-5 major depressive disorder (MDD) symptoms in Chinese earthquake survivors. METHOD:Participants were 1058 Chinese earthquake survivors. Self-reported measures included the PHQ-9 and the Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36). Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) and structural equation modelling (SEM) was used to examine the latent structure of MDD and the associations between latent factors of MDD and different domains of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), respectively. RESULTS: In the current sample, the model consisted of somatic and cognitive/affective (non-somatic) factors demonstrated significantly better fit than the other competing MDD models (χ2 = 173.89, df = 26, CFI = 0.986, TLI = 0.981, RMSEA = 0.073, BIC = 18,091.13). Further SEM analyses indicated that the non-somatic factor was significantly related to both physical (β = - 0.362, p < .01) and psychosocial HRQoL (β = - 0.773, p < .01), while the somatic factor was a uniquely predictor of physical HRQoL (β = - 0.336, p < .01). Furthermore, we found the somatic factor partially mediated the relationship between the cognitive/affective factor and physical HRQoL (all ps < .05). CONCLUSIONS: The MDD symptoms was best captured by a two-factor model comprised of somatic and cognitive/affective factors in Chinese natural disaster survivors. The two MDD factors were differentially associated with physical and psychosocial HRQoL, and the cognitive/affective factor associated physical HRQoL partially through the somatic factor. The current findings increase our understanding of latent structure of MDD symptoms, and carry implications for assessment and intervention of post-disaster mental health problems.
Entities:
Keywords:
Chinese; Confirmatory factor analysis; Disaster; Health-related quality of life; Major depressive disorders
Authors: Claire Z Kalpakjian; Loren L Toussaint; Kathie J Albright; Charles H Bombardier; James K Krause; Denise G Tate Journal: J Spinal Cord Med Date: 2009 Impact factor: 1.985
Authors: Alan M Rathbun; Megan S Schuler; Elizabeth A Stuart; Michelle D Shardell; Michelle S Yau; Joseph J Gallo; Alice S Ryan; Marc C Hochberg Journal: Arthritis Care Res (Hoboken) Date: 2020-05 Impact factor: 4.794
Authors: Jon D Elhai; Ateka A Contractor; Marijo Tamburrino; Thomas H Fine; Marta R Prescott; Edwin Shirley; Phillip K Chan; Renee Slembarski; Israel Liberzon; Sandro Galea; Joseph R Calabrese Journal: Psychiatry Res Date: 2012-06-12 Impact factor: 3.222
Authors: A J Ferrari; A J Somerville; A J Baxter; R Norman; S B Patten; T Vos; H A Whiteford Journal: Psychol Med Date: 2012-07-25 Impact factor: 7.723