4.6 Article

Relationship between Physical Disability and Depression by Gender: A Panel Regression Model

期刊

PLOS ONE
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

PUBLIC LIBRARY SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166238

关键词

-

资金

  1. Seoul Women's University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background Depression in persons with physical disabilities may be more common than in the general population. The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between physical disability and depression by gender among adults, using a large, nationally representative sample. Methods This study used data from the Korean Longitudinal Study of Aging, Wave one through four, and ran a series of random effect panel regression models to test the relationship between physical disability status and depression by gender. We tested the moderating effect of gender on the relationship between disability status and depression level by examining the significance of the cross-product term between disability status and gender. Results After controlling for self-rated health, marital status, employment status, education, and age, subjects who were female or diagnosed as having any disability presented higher levels of depression scores. Further, the difference in terms of their depression level measured by Center for Epidemiologic Studies Short Depression Scale (CES-D 10) scores between those who were diagnosed as having any disability and those who were not was greater for females than for their male counterparts. Conclusion This study reaffirmed that disability is the risk factor of depression, using longitudinal data. In addition, female gender is the effect modifier rather than the risk factor. The effect of gender in the non-disability group, mostly composed of older persons, is limited. On the contrary, the female disability group showed more depressive symptoms than the male disability group. The gender difference in the disability group and the role of culture on these differences need further research.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据