| Literature DB >> 36062100 |
Gang Tian1, Rui Li1, Yiran Cui1, Tong Zhou1, Yan Shi1, Wenyan Yang1, Yulan Ma1, Jingliang Shuai1, Yan Yan1.
Abstract
Objective: Disability and social support can impact depressive symptoms of the elderly. Yet, studies infrequently discuss the moderating role of social support when evaluating the association between disability and depressive symptoms. The purpose of this study was to explore the association between disability, social support, and depressive symptoms among the Chinese elderly, and further examine the moderating effect of social support. Materials and methods: Using the 2018 Chinese Longitudinal Healthy Longevity Survey (CLHLS) data set, we finally selected 9,231 Chinese elderly after screening. The Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale (CESD-10) was used to evaluate depressive symptoms in the elderly. Disability was measured by basic activities of daily living (B-ADL) and instrumental activities of daily living (I-ADL). Social support included contact with family and friends, sick care, and money received, measured by five self-reported questions. We used multiple linear regression and moderating model to explore the association between disability, social support, and depressive symptoms.Entities:
Keywords: depressive symptoms; disability; elderly people; moderating effect; social support
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 36062100 PMCID: PMC9437525 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.980465
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Describe the characteristics of depressive symptoms in Chinese adults aged 65 years and older.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
|
| |||||||
| 65–79 | 3,784 | 84.10% | 6.72 ± 4.34 | <0.001 | 2,923 | 861 | <0.001 |
| 80–99 | 4,288 | 15.80% | 7.62 ± 4.51 | 3,032 | 1,256 | ||
| ≥100 | 1,159 | 0.01% | 7.63 ± 5.49 | 807 | 352 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Men | 4,260 | 47.40% | 6.39 ± 4.11 | <0.001 | 3,316 | 944 | <0.001 |
| Women | 4,971 | 52.60% | 7.29 ± 4.56 | 3,446 | 1,525 | ||
|
| |||||||
| 0 | 4,026 | 27.60% | 7.90 ± 4.52 | <0.001 | 2,694 | 1,332 | <0.001 |
| 1–6 | 3,213 | 42.00% | 6.69 ± 4.15 | 2,461 | 752 | ||
| ≥7 | 1,992 | 30.40% | 6.17 ± 4.38 | 1,607 | 385 | ||
|
| |||||||
| City | 2,338 | 22.80% | 6.66 ± 4.66 | <0.001 | 1,831 | 507 | <0.001 |
| Town | 3,036 | 29.80% | 7.03 ± 4.48 | 2,152 | 884 | ||
| Rural | 3,857 | 47.40% | 6.86 ± 4.16 | 2,779 | 1,078 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Married and living with spouse | 4,195 | 70.60% | 6.49 ± 4.20 | <0.001 | 3,275 | 920 | <0.001 |
| Separated | 172 | 2.40% | 7.03 ± 4.30 | 123 | 49 | ||
| Divorced | 32 | 0.50% | 7.50 ± 3.85 | 24 | 8 | ||
| Widowed | 4,769 | 25.80% | 7.80 ± 4.69 | 3,307 | 1,462 | ||
| Never married | 63 | 0.70% | 8.89 ± 4.77 | 33 | 30 | ||
|
| |||||||
| With household member(s) | 7,415 | 85.60% | 6.64 ± 4.25 | <0.001 | 5,585 | 1,830 | <0.001 |
| Alone | 1,505 | 12.80% | 8.06 ± .79 | 984 | 521 | ||
| In an institution | 311 | 1.60% | 9.09 ± 5.24 | 193 | 118 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Very rich | 261 | 2.50% | 5.29 ± 3.89 | <0.001 | 225 | 36 | <0.001 |
| Rich | 1,614 | 16.00% | 5.50 ± 3.87 | 1,377 | 237 | ||
| General level | 6,446 | 71.40% | 6.77 ± 4.12 | 4,719 | 1,727 | ||
| Poor | 802 | 8.90% | 9.90 ± 5.09 | 397 | 405 | ||
| Very poor | 108 | 1.10% | 11.82 ± 6.79 | 44 | 64 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Yes | 1,490 | 19.90% | 6.49 ± 4.04 | <0.001 | 1,168 | 322 | <0.001 |
| No | 7,741 | 80.10% | 6.96 ± 4.45 | 5,594 | 2,147 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Yes | 1,398 | 18.50% | 5.92 ± 4.09 | <0.001 | 1,124 | 274 | <0.001 |
| No | 7,833 | 81.50% | 7.08 ± 4.41 | 5,638 | 2,195 | ||
|
| |||||||
| Yes, often | 3,245 | 42.50% | 6.02 ± 4.00 | <0.001 | 2,684 | 561 | <0.001 |
| No, rarely | 5,986 | 57.50% | 7.49 ± 4.54 | 4,078 | 1,908 | ||
*Case weighted results.
Figure 1Association between disability and depressive symptoms in the elderly.
Figure 2Correlation coefficient of social support and depressive symptoms. ×P > 0.05.
Figure 3Association between disability, social support, and depressive symptoms in the elderly.
Moderation analysis of social support for the association between B-ADL and depressive symptoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| B-ADL | 0.170 | 0.387 | 0.023 | 16.523 | <0.001 | 0.342 | 0.432 |
| Social support | −0.096 | −0.184 | 0.020 | −9.17 | <0.001 | −0.223 | −0.145 |
| B-ADL*social support | 0.054 | 0.050 | 0.011 | 4.582 | <0.001 | 0.028 | 0.072 |
| B-ADL | 0.130 | 0.296 | 0.024 | 12.075 | <0.001 | 0.248 | 0.343 |
| Social support | −0.056 | −0.108 | 0.031 | −3.527 | <0.001 | −0.168 | −0.047 |
| B-ADL*social support | 0.037 | 0.034 | 0.010 | 3.188 | 0.001 | 0.014 | 0.053 |
Model 2 adjusted for age, gender, educational level, subjective poverty, marital status, living pattern, residence, smoking, drinking, and physical exercise. Set residence, living pattern, and marital status as dummy variables. SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; disability *social support: the interaction effect between disability and social support.
Moderation analysis of social support for the association between I-ADL and depressive symptoms.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| ||||||
| I-ADL | 0.224 | 0.177 | 0.008 | 22.087 | <0.001 | 0.161 | 0.192 |
| Social support | −0.053 | −0.102 | 0.021 | −4.908 | <0.001 | −0.143 | −0.060 |
| I-ADL*social support | 0.071 | 0.025 | 0.004 | 6.631 | <0.001 | 0.017 | 0.033 |
| I-ADL | 0.220 | 0.174 | 0.011 | 16.407 | <0.001 | 0.152 | 0.195 |
| Social support | −0.051 | −0.098 | 0.030 | −3.231 | 0.001 | −0.156 | −0.039 |
| I-ADL*social support | 0.051 | 0.018 | 0.004 | 4.836 | <0.001 | 0.010 | 0.025 |
Model 4 adjusted for age, gender, educational level, subjective poverty, marital status, living pattern, residence, smoking, drinking, and physical exercise. Set residence, living pattern, and marital status as dummy variables. SE: standard error; CI: confidence interval; disability *social support: the interaction effect between disability and social support.
Figure 4Model of moderation by social support. *P < 0.05.