Does a rural residence predict the development of depressive symptoms in older adults?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: We sought to determine whether adults aged 65 years or older living in rural areas who are without depressive symptoms have a lower risk of developing depressive symptoms over 5 years than their urban counterparts, and to determine the factors that predict the development of depressive symptoms in older adults in rural and urban areas. METHODS: We conducted a secondary analysis of an existing data set, the Manitoba Study of Health and Aging (MSHA.) We studied a population-based random sample of 807 people without depressive symptoms or cognitive impairment who were residing in Manitoba communities in 1991/92 and 5 years later in 1996/97. We defined "rural" as a census subdivision with a population of less than 20,000, and "urban" as a population of 20,000 or greater. The MSHA investigators measured depressive symptoms using the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression scale, using the standard cut-point of 16 or more. Participants reported their age, sex, education, self-rated health, and functional status at the time of their first interview. RESULTS: Of adults aged 65 years or older living in urban areas, 13.3% developed depressive symptoms, versus 8.9% of those living in rural regions (p = 0.047). In multivariate analyses, a rural residence was not associated with the development of depressive symptoms. In rural areas, factors predicting depressive symptoms were female sex and poor self-rated health at the time of the first interview. CONCLUSION: A rural residence is only weakly protective for the development of depressive symptoms over 5 years, and this association was not seen after we accounted for potential confounding variables. As well, these results underscore the strong association between poor health and depressive symptoms.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".