Risk factors and protective factors of depression in older people 65+. A systematic review

Bibliographic Data

ID23338593
AuthorsAlexander Maier (0009-0004-4660-4544), Steffi G Riedel-Heller (0000-0003-4321-6090), Alexander Pabst (0000-0003-0432-5681), Melanie Luppa (0000-0003-3927-6728)
EditorsAntony Bayer (0000-0002-7514-248X)
Year2021
Volume16
Issue5
Pagese0251326
Publication date2021-05-13
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenuePLoS ONE (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 1932-6203 • E-ISSN: 1932-6203
PublisherPublic Library of Science (PLoS) (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1371/journal.pone.0251326
LanguageEN
Citations received52
References cited50

Objectives Identifying risk factors of depression can provide a better understanding of the disorder in older people. However, to minimize bias due to the influence of confounders and to detect reverse influence, a focus on longitudinal studies using multivariate analysis is required. Design A systematic literature search was conducted by searching the databases MEDLINE, Cochrane, PsycINFO and Web of Science for all relevant articles published from January 2000 to the end of March 2020. The following inclusion criteria were used: prospective design, nationally or regionally representative sample, published in English or German, analyzed risk factors for depression of individuals 65+ identified by multivariate analysis, and provided validity of diagnostic instrument. All results of multivariate analysis were reported and summarized. Results Thirty articles were identified. Heterogeneous results were found for education, female gender, self-rated health, cognitive impairment and older age, although significant in several studies. Findings hinted at a protective quality of physical activity. In terms of physical health, chronic disease and difficulty initiating sleep homogeneously increased risk of depression. Mobility impairment resulted as a risk factor in three studies. IADL impairment and vision impairment were mostly identified as significant risk factors. Alcohol consumption and smoking behavior yielded heterogenous results. Psychosocial factors were assessed similarly in multiple studies and yielded heterogenous results. Limitations Research was limited to articles published in English or German. Length of follow up was not considered for the presentation of results. Adjustments for and inclusion of different variables in the studies may distort results. Conclusion Our findings demonstrate the necessity of refined, more comparable assessment tools for evaluating potential risk factors.

Tools

Open DOI