Is it better to be happy or not depressed? Depression mediates the effect of psychological well‐being on adverse health outcomes in older adults
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To examine the relationship between psychological well-being and depression in older adults and the relative contribution these psychological factors have on risk of functional disability, frailty, and mortality. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of 1668 community-dwelling older adults without dementia who participated in the second wave of the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Baseline assessments of psychological well-being (Ryff scale) and depression (Geriatric Depression Scale; GDS) were collected. At 5-year follow-up, mortality data were collected; frailty and disability in activities of daily living were evaluated using the frailty index (FI) and the Lawton-Brody scale, respectively. RESULTS: Area under the receiver-operating characteristic curve indicated that GDS and Ryff scores were able to independently discriminate whether individuals were considered frail (C = 0.66; C = 0.59, respectively), had limitations in basic (C = 0.64; C = 0.57, respectively) or instrumental (C = 0.70; C = 0.57, respectively) activities of daily living, or had died (C = 0.63; C = 0.57) at follow-up (all P < 0.01). Regression models in which the Ryff and GDS were included in the same model demonstrated that the GDS significantly predicted frailty, disability, and mortality, whereas the Ryff effect was not significant. Mediation analysis determined that the effect of psychological well-being on adverse outcomes was fully mediated by depression. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that although both depression and psychological well-being appear to modulate risk for adverse physical health outcomes, depression mediates this relationship. Detecting and treating depressive symptoms should be of high priority in older patients to mitigate risk of future physical health adversities including mortality. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".