Predictors for depressive symptoms by four types of disability

Sun Wook Jung,Wanhyung Lee,Jin-Ha Yoon

doi:10.1038/s41598-021-98765-4

Sun Wook Jung, Wanhyung Lee + Show 1 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-98765-4

Copy DOI

Abstract

This study aimed to examine the longitudinal relationship between disability and depressive symptoms, by comparing four types of disability in community-dwelling individuals with disabilities in South Korea. A total of 3347 South Koreans with disabilities from the second wave of the Panel Survey of Employment for the Disabled was utilized. Depressive symptomatology was assessed by whether the participant had experienced depressive symptoms for more than two weeks during the past year. A multivariate logistic regression model was used to calculate the odds ratio (OR) for depressive symptoms, and a Cox proportional hazards model to calculate the hazard ratio (HR) for two-year survival analysis. Persons who acquired mental disability from accident or industrial disaster and persons with congenital physical-internal disability were at higher risk for depressive symptoms. Maintaining employment was found to be an effective way to decrease the risk of depressive symptoms in persons with physical-external disability, sensory/speech disability, or mental disability. In contrast, in physical-internal disability, retaining normal ability to work seemed to be the key to reduce the risk of depressive symptoms. Predictors of depressive symptoms were found to differ depending on the type of disability. Such differences should be reflected in clinical and policy-level interventions to address the specific psychiatric needs of persons with different disabilities.

Highlights

This study aimed to examine the longitudinal relationship between disability and depressive symptoms, by comparing four types of disability in community-dwelling individuals with disabilities in South Korea
The prevalence of depressive symptoms was higher in the physical-internal disability and mental disability categories (23.8% and 23.2%, respectively) than the physical-external disability and sensory/speech disability categories (16.6% and 15.0%, respectively)
The prevalence of depressive symptoms was the highest in those with physical-internal disability (25.0%, n = 52), and the lowest in those with physical-external disability (14.7%, n = 238). Those who were women, of older age, living without a partner, earning a lower household income, of a smaller household size, living in the metropolitan area, unemployed, unable to work, of low social activity participation, in need of assistance in daily living, discriminated against, of low friendship satisfaction, of low leisure satisfaction, diagnosed with chronic conditions, and current smokers were found to have a higher prevalence of depressive symptoms

Summary

Introduction

This study aimed to examine the longitudinal relationship between disability and depressive symptoms, by comparing four types of disability in community-dwelling individuals with disabilities in South Korea. Persons who acquired mental disability from accident or industrial disaster and persons with congenital physical-internal disability were at higher risk for depressive symptoms. Maintaining employment was found to be an effective way to decrease the risk of depressive symptoms in persons with physical-external disability, sensory/speech disability, or mental disability. As constructed through dynamic interactions between health conditions and contextual (i.e., environmental and personal) factors, disability profoundly impacts an individual’s mental w ellbeing[4]. Abundant research has demonstrated that people with disabilities are at higher risk of depressive symptoms than the general population in both men and women of all ages, as a consequence of biological mechanisms, as well as social factors such as loss of independence in daily living and restricted social p articipation[5,6,7,8]. Conditions and contextual factors such as personal factors (e.g., gender, age, socioeconomic status) and environmental factors (e.g., independence or ability to self-care, employment status, social isolation, or discrimination)[12]

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusion