Health Services Research Department, Kings College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK and Rene Rachou Research Centre, Oswaldo Cruz Foundation, Belo Horizonte, Brazil
Health Services Research Department, Kings College London, Institute of Psychiatry, London
Department of PhD, Department of Psychiatry, University of Cambridge, UK
Department of Psychiatry, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
Service of Geriatric Medicine & Geriatric Rehabilitation, University of Lausanne Medical Center, Lausanne, Switzerland
University Clinic and Outpatient Department for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, Campus Benjamin Franklin, Berlin, Germany
Department of Psychiatry, Division of Social Psychiatry, Medical University of Vienna, Austria
National Institute of Health and Medical Research (INSERM E361), Montpelier, France
Department of Neurology, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, Greece
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain
Health Services Research Department, Kings College London, and Institute of Psychiatry, London, UK
Correspondence: Dr Erico Castro-Costa, Section of Epidemiology, PO Box 060, De Crespigny Park, London SE5 8AF, UK. Tel: +44 (0)20 7848 0341; fax: +44 (0)20 7277 0283; email: dacosta.bhe{at}terra.com.br, erico.costa{at}iop.kcl.ac.uk
Declaration of interest None. Funding detailed in Acknowledgements.
|
|
|---|
Aims To describe the national variation in depression symptoms and syndrome prevalence across ten European countries.
Method The EURO–D was administered to cross-sectional
nationally representative samples of noninstitutionalised persons aged
50
years (n=22 777). The effects of age, gender, education and cognitive
functioning on individual symptoms and EURO–D factor scores were
estimated. Country-specific depression prevalence rates and mean factor scores
were re-estimated, adjusted for these compositional effects.
Results The prevalence of all symptoms was higher in the Latin ethno-lingual group of countries, especially symptoms related to motivation. Women scored higher on affective suffering; older people and those with impaired verbal fluency scored higher on motivation.
Conclusions The prevalence of individual EURO–D symptoms and
of probable depression (cut-off score
4) varied consistently between
countries. Standardising for effects of age, gender, education and cognitive
function suggested that these compositional factors did not account for the
observed variation.
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
The SHARE interview was specifically designed to cross-link with the US Health and Retirement Study (http://hrsonline.isr.umich.edu) and the English Longitudinal Study of Ageing (http://www.natcen.ac.uk/elsa), with the advantage that it encompasses international variation in culture, health and social welfare systems and public policy. Questions covered health variables (self-reported health, physical functioning, cognitive functioning, health behaviour, use of healthcare facilities), psychological variables (depression, well-being, life satisfaction), economic variables (current work activity, job characteristics, opportunities to work past retirement age, sources and composition of current income, wealth and consumption, housing and education) and social support variables (assistance within families, transfers of income and assets, social networks, volunteer activities). All of the above topics were rated in an interview conducted in the respondents home, with an average interview duration of around 90 min. Response rates were acceptable throughout. The data are freely available to the research community (http://www.share-project.org).
Measurements
The EURO–D was originally developed to compare symptoms of depression
in 11 European centres (Prince et
al, 1999b). Its items are derived from the Geriatric
Mental State examination (GMS; Copeland
et al, 1986) and cover 12 symptom domains: depressed
mood, pessimism, suicidality, guilt, sleep, interest, irritability, appetite,
fatigue, concentration, enjoyment and tearfulness. Each item is scored 0
(symptom not present) or 1 (symptom present), and item scores are summed to
produce a scale with a minimum score of zero and a maximum of 12.
The psychometric properties of the EURO–D have been extensively investigated and criterion validity demonstrated in the cross-cultural context. Principal components analysis generated two factors (affective suffering and motivation) that were common to nearly every participating European country in the EURODEP studies (Prince et al, 1999b) and for Indian, Latin-American and Caribbean centres in the 10/66 Dementia Research Group pilot studies (Prince et al, 2004). Subsequent analysis of the EURO–D in the SHARE data-set using confirmatory factor analysis confirmed the two-factor solution of the EURO–D and suggested measurement invariance across the ten countries (common factor loadings and item calibrations), at least for the affective suffering factor (Castro-Costa et al, 2007). Criterion validity for this measure was demonstrated in each of the EURODEP study sites, with an optimal cut-off point of a score of 4 or above against a variety of criteria for clinically significant depression (Prince et al, 1999b). The EURO–D was also found to be reliable and was validated against the criterion of DSM–III–R depression in older people in Spain (Larraga et al, 2006).
The following aspects of cognitive function were measured in all participants: memory, using delayed recall of a ten-word list in wide international use (Ganguli et al, 1996; Prince et al, 2003), the only difference being that in our study this was presented once only in the learning phase, as opposed to the conventional three presentations; and verbal fluency, measured using the Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimers Disease (CERAD) animal naming task (Goodglass & Kaplan, 1983). Other factors considered in the analysis were age, gender and duration of education.
Statistical analyses
Country-specific prevalences of all 12 EURO–D items were derived, as
were prevalence of EURO–D scores of 4 or more, and country-specific mean
scores for the affective suffering and motivation sub-scales. The independent
effects of gender, age (<75 years v. 75+ years), duration of
education (11+ years v. <11 years), verbal fluency score (<10
v. 10+ animals named) and memory (3+ v. <3 words
recalled) upon individual symptoms were estimated in each country as mutually
adjusted prevalence ratios from Poisson regression models with 95% confidence
intervals. For each covariate, an effect by country interaction term was added
to the final model to test for heterogeneity. Associations with factor scores
for the two sub-scales were estimated as eta-squared statistics derived from
generalised linear modelling (GLM), again with effect by country interaction
terms fitted in the final stage. Finally, affective suffering
and motivation scores were estimated, adjusting for age, gender,
education, verbal fluency and memory using GLM, and the country-specific
prevalence of EURO–D depression (a score of 4 or over) was standardised
separately for age, gender, education, verbal fluency and memory and for all
effects simultaneously, using the direct method to the age, gender, education
and verbal fluency distribution of the pooled data-set. All analyses were
conducted with Stata version 9.1 for Windows.
|
|
|---|
The characteristics of the sample by country, gender and age and also household and individual response rates have been reported in detail elsewhere (Borsch-Supan et al, 2005). The proportion of households responding was 57.4% overall, with the lowest response in Switzerland (37.6%) and the highest in France (69.4%). Individual response proportions ranged from 73.8% (Italy) to 93.0% (Denmark), with a rate of 86.0% overall. The principal characteristics of the respondents in each country are summarised in Table 1. The distribution of gender and age did not differ between countries. In the pooled data-set, 54.5% were female, and the mean age was 64.7 years (s.d.=10.0). Educational levels were lowest in the Latin countries (France, Italy and Spain) and in Greece. Participants from these countries also recorded the lowest (most impaired) scores on both the animal naming task and the delayed recall of the ten-word delayed recall list. In most countries more than half of the sample were retired, the exceptions being The Netherlands (32%), Spain (35%), Switzerland (45%) and Greece (45%). Mean EURO–D scores were statistically different between countries (F=68.79; P<0.00001) and were highest in France, Spain and Italy. The prevalence rates of individual depressive symptoms are displayed in Figs 1 and 2 for symptoms loading principally on affective suffering and motivation respectively. These varied consistently and significantly between countries (P<0.001) for all 12 symptoms, with a higher prevalence in France, Spain and Italy. Among affective suffering symptoms, depressed mood, tearfulness, fatigue and sleep disturbance were most common. Among motivation symptoms, poor concentration was reported most frequently.
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 1 Demographic and cognitive variables of the sample (n=22 777) |
![]() View larger version (20K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 1 Prevalence of affective suffering symptoms.
|
![]() View larger version (15K): [in a new window] [as a PowerPoint slide] |
Fig. 2 Prevalence of motivation symptoms.
|
Associations with affective suffering symptoms are summarised in Table 2: depression, tearfulness, suicidality and fatigue were selected because they have the highest factor loading for affective suffering (Castro-Costa et al, 2007). The four individual symptoms and the overall factor score were each consistently associated with gender, with higher prevalence of symptoms and higher factor scores among women, with negligible influence of age, education or cognitive function. None of these effects varied significantly between countries.
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 2 Effects of gender, age, education, verbal fluency and memory upon items loading on the affective suffering factor, by country |
Associations with motivation symptoms are summarised in Table 3. Enjoyment, pessimism and interest were chosen because of their high factor loading for motivation (Castro-Costa et al, 2007). The three individual symptoms and the overall factor score were consistently and strongly associated with age, with a higher prevalence of symptoms and higher factor scores among older people. Effects of gender and education were negligible. Motivation symptoms and factor score were also strongly associated with lower verbal fluency, but were not associated with impaired memory. None of these associations varied significantly between countries.
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 3 Effects of gender, age, education, verbal fluency and memory upon items loading on motivation factor, by country |
The prevalence of case-level depression according to the EURO–D scale is summarised and compared between nations in Table 4. Consistent with the observations for individual EURO–D symptoms, the highest prevalence rates were found in France, Italy and Spain, with a 9% difference between the lowest of these (33% in France) and the next lowest (24% in Greece). Prevalence in the remaining countries was 18–19%. Heterogeneity between countries was statistically significant (P<0.001). The pattern and extent of between-country differences were not affected by direct standardisation for gender, age, education, verbal fluency or memory.
|
View this table: [in a new window] | Table 4 Mean scores and prevalence of depression according to the EURO–D |
|
|
|---|
Strengths and weaknesses of the study design
This study has the advantage of using data from nationally representative
samples of those aged 50 years and over from ten European countries. Strong
conceptual validity, high internal consistency and a common factor structure
among different European centres was previously demonstrated for the
depression assessment, the EURO–D
(Prince et al,
1999b). Furthermore, these favourable psychometric
properties were confirmed in an earlier analysis of SHARE data using more
advanced psychometric techniques – confirmatory factor analysis and
Rasch modelling – to support the cross-cultural validity of the measure
(Castro-Costa et al,
2007). These analyses provided further robust evidence to support
a two-factor solution: affective suffering (well characterised, and invariant
across cultures) and motivation (less well characterised and variable across
cultures). As with the mental health survey under-taken by the European Study
of the Epidemiology of Mental Disorders (ESEMed;
Alonso et al, 2004),
the SHARE data are limited by the relatively low proportion of households and
individuals responding. This may, unfortunately, represent a secular trend in
more developed countries. The net effect may be an underestimation of the true
prevalence of depression (Eaton et
al, 1992; De Graaf et
al, 2000). We used a simple scale-based assessment for
depression rather than a comprehensive clinical diagnostic interview.
Nevertheless, the EURO–D and its cut-off point of 4 or more have
previously been validated against relevant clinical assessments in different
European settings (Prince et al,
1999b).
Consistency with findings from other research
Findings from the SHARE survey are most directly comparable with those of
the EURODEP consortium studies, in which the same outcome measure (the
EURO–D) was administered to older adults in cross-sectional
population-based surveys. In descending order, the mean EURO-D scores for each
of the EURODEP centres that used the GMS were: Munich (Germany), 3.58; London
(UK), 2.54; Berlin (Germany), 2.48; Iceland, 2.03; Amsterdam (The
Netherlands), 1.98; Verona (Italy), 1.84; Liverpool (UK), 1.79; Zaragoza
(Spain), 1.61; and Dublin (Ireland), 1.34
(Prince et al,
1999a). The EURODEP findings do not, therefore, support
our finding of higher levels of reported depression symptoms in Latin
countries. However, there are important differences between the SHARE and
EURODEP studies. First, none of the EURODEP centres used nationally
representative samples, and the age range was 65 years and over rather than 50
years and over as in SHARE. Second, the EURO–D items were nested within
the more comprehensive GMS clinical interview. Finally, in several centres the
GMS was administered by clinicians working for university research groups
rather than by lay interviewers working for survey organisations as with
SHARE. Nevertheless, several findings in our analysis are consistent with
those of EURODEP: motivation factor scores and EURO–D scores increase
with age, and affective suffering scores and EURO–D scores are higher in
women than in men (Prince et al,
1999a). The EURODEP investigators postulated that some of
the effect of age on motivation factor scores might have been accounted for by
cognitive impairment (cognitive assessments were not available from most of
the EURODEP centres, so this could not be tested directly). This hypothesis is
supported in the current analysis, but it is impairment in verbal fluency
rather than memory that seems to be mediating or confounding the effect of age
on motivation factor scores. As with the EURODEP analyses, the differences
between SHARE countries in the distribution of age and gender could not
account for between-country differences in depression symptoms. We have
further demonstrated that compositional differences in education and cognitive
functioning are also not relevant.
Comparisons with other European surveys are limited by the different age ranges and different outcomes studied. For instance, the ESEMeD study (Alonso et al, 2004), as part of the wider World Mental Health survey, used the World Health Organizations Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI) to estimate the prevalence of mood disorder (DSM–IV bipolar disorder, major depression and dysthymia) in nationally representative samples of all those aged 18 years and over in seven European countries. In descending order, the prevalence of mood disorder varied from Ukraine (9.1%), France (8.5%), The Netherlands (6.9%), Belgium (6.2%), Spain (4.9%), Italy (3.8%) to Germany (3.6%) (Alonso et al, 2004). The Outcome of Depression International Network (ODIN) study used a two-phase design (the Beck Depression Inventory for screening in the first phase and the Schedule for Clinical Assessment in Neuropsychiatry for definitive clinical diagnoses in the second phase) in locally representative samples from five European countries: the prevalence of any ICD–10 depressive disorder varied from 17.1% in Liverpool (UK) and 12.3% in Dublin (Ireland) to 2.6% in Santander (Spain) (Ayuso-Mateos et al, 2001). Findings from surveys using structured clinical diagnostic assessments of predominately younger adult samples are therefore not consistent with the ethno-cultural distribution of reported depression symptoms observed in the SHARE study.
Cultural and methodological effects on measurement
We have previously demonstrated, using the SHARE data
(Castro-Costa et al,
2007), that the EURO–D had promisingly invariant measurement
properties – that is, the factor structures, factor loadings and
hierarchical measurement properties were similar across all ten centres.
Similar characteristics were observed internationally for the CIDI major
depression items in the WHO international study of psychological problems in
general healthcare (Simon et al,
2002). The investigators in the latter study remind us that
invariant measurement properties do not preclude the possibility of threshold
effects, whereby the severity with which a symptom is experienced before the
relevant item is endorsed may vary between cultural settings, and that this
may account for cultural differences in prevalence
(Simon et al, 2002).
In other domains of health assessment innovative techniques are being
developed to adjust for such effects, using vignettes to estimate and then
adjust for threshold differences between populations
(Salomon et al,
2004); these could in principle be applied to the assessment of
depression. Earlier studies of patterns of responses to items of the Center
for Epidemiologic Studies Depression Scale between minority ethnic groups in
the USA (Iwata et al,
1995) and in undergraduate students in east Asia and in North and
South America (Iwata & Buka,
2002) indicated greater cross-cultural variability in responses to
positively worded compared with negatively worded items. Interestingly, the
same pattern was observed for the EURO–D in both the EURODEP and SHARE
studies. The motivation items (for which there was greater variation in item
prevalence and factor scores) are all positively worded, whereas the affective
suffering items are negatively worded. Some of this between-country variation
may therefore reflect cultural and linguistic differences in appraising and
responding to positively worded items, rather than national differences in
psychological morbidity. This could not, however, have accounted for the
heavier load of depressive symptoms in Latin countries observed in the SHARE
study, given that the higher symptom prevalence in France, Italy and Spain was
observed for both affective suffering and motivation symptoms (see Figs
1 and
2).
The specific association between verbal fluency (but not memory) and motivation (but not affective suffering) calls into question the construct validity of the motivation components of the EURO–D scale, which may be measuring the effects of subcortical brain damage (apathy and slowing) rather than depression per se. Given that the EURO–D items were originally selected because they were present in all or most of the five late-life depression assessments used in the EURODEP studies, this is likely to be a general problem. It would be interesting to re-explore the concept of vascular depression (Alexopoulos et al, 1997), using the affective suffering and motivation components. It is tempting to conclude that the affective suffering component might be the more valid measure of psychological morbidity, as well as providing a more psychometrically appropriate tool for cross-cultural comparison (Castro-Costa et al, 2007).
Concluding remarks
Given the pattern of findings, it is tempting to conclude that variation in
prevalence of depressive symptoms and syndromes in older European men and
women may be best understood in terms of ethnocultural differences, with a
higher prevalence recorded in the Latin nations (France, Italy and Spain) than
in the Germanic (Sweden, Denmark, Germany, The Netherlands) and Hellenic
(Greece) countries. However, although we have excluded here the compositional
effects of major determinants of depression prevalence – age, gender,
education and cognitive function – it remains possible that other risk
exposures, differently distributed between countries, might have accounted for
the observed variation. Even though compositional effects can be confidently
excluded, it remains difficult to attribute the contextual effect or effects
that might be responsible. Language and culture are contextual effects, in
that they are the property of the population (country, in this case) with no
meaningful individual-level variation. Other contextual effects may be
important, for example income inequality
(Muramatsu, 2003), social
capital (LaGory, 1992) and
religiosity (Braam et al,
2001). Technically it is possible in principle to study contextual
effects and to disentangle their impact from that of compositional effects,
using multilevel modelling approaches. This will be the focus of a further
analysis.
|
|
|---|
|
|
|---|
Related articles in BJP:
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H. Litwin and E. V. Sapir Perceived Income Adequacy Among Older Adults in 12 Countries: Findings From the Survey of Health, Ageing, and Retirement in Europe Gerontologist, June 1, 2009; 49(3): 397 - 406. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
P. Tyrer From the Editor's desk The British Journal of Psychiatry, April 1, 2008; 192(4): 320 - 320. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||