MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4401272236 · doi:10.2196/52536

Decomposition Analysis of Depressive Symptom Differences Among Older Adults With Hypertension Between Urban and Rural Areas: Cross-Sectional Study

2024· article· en· W4401272236 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Lei Yuan, Qinqin Jiang, Yuqing Liu, Yijun Liu, Maolin Du, Sun Jin-hai, Meina Li

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineCross-sectional studyDepression (economics)Odds ratioDemographyRural areaPopulationDepressive symptomsGerontologyEnvironmental healthInternal medicinePsychiatryAnxiety

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Hypertension is the most prevalent chronic disease among China's older population, which comprises a growing proportion of the overall demographic. Older individuals with chronic diseases have a higher risk of developing depressive symptoms than their healthy counterparts, as evidenced in China's older population, where patients with hypertension exhibit varying rates of depression depending on residing in urban or rural areas. Objective: This study aimed to investigate factors influencing and contributing to the disparities in depressive symptoms among older urban and rural patients with hypertension in China. Methods: We used a cross-sectional study design and derived data from the 8th Chinese Longitudinal Health Longevity Survey of 2018. The Fairlie model was applied to analyze the factors contributing to disparities in depressive symptoms between urban and rural older populations with hypertension. Results: The sample size for this study was 5210, and 12.8% (n=669) of participants exhibited depressive symptoms. The proportions of depressive symptoms in rural and urban areas were 14.1% (n=468) and 10.7% (n=201), respectively. In rural areas, years of education (1-6 years: odds ratio [OR] 0.68, 95% CI 1.10-1.21; ≥7 years: OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.24-0.94), alcohol consumption (yes: OR 0.52, 95% CI 0.29-0.93), exercise (yes: OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.56-1.08), and sleep duration (6.0-7.9 hours: OR 0.29, 95% CI 0.17-0.52; 8.0-9.9 hours: OR 0.24, 95% CI 0.13-0.43; ≥10.0 hours: OR 0.22, 95% CI 0.11-0.41) were protective factors against depressive symptoms in older adults with hypertension, while gender (female: OR 1.94, 95% CI 1.33-2.81), self-reported income status (poor: OR 3.07, 95% CI 2.16-4.37), and activities of daily living (ADL) dysfunction (mild: OR 1.69, 95% CI 1.11-2.58; severe: OR 3.03, 95% CI 1.46-6.32) were risk factors. In urban areas, age (90-99 years: OR 0.37, 95% CI 0.16-0.81; ≥100 years: OR 0.19, 95% CI 0.06-0.66), exercise (yes: OR 0.33, 95% CI 0.22-0.51), and sleep duration (6.0-7.9 hours: OR 0.27, 95% CI 0.10-0.71; 8.0-9.9 hours: OR 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.44; ≥10.0 hours: OR 0.18, 95% CI 0.06-0.57) were protective factors, while years of education (1-6 years: OR 1.91, 95% CI 1.05-3.49), self-reported income status (poor: OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.43-6.08), and ADL dysfunction (mild: OR 2.38, 95% CI 1.39-4.06; severe: OR 3.26, 95% CI 1.21-8.76) were risk factors. The Fairlie model revealed that 91.61% of differences in depressive symptoms could be explained by covariates, including years of education (contribution 63.1%), self-reported income status (contribution 13.2%), exercise (contribution 45.7%), sleep duration (contribution 20.8%), ADL dysfunction (contribution -9.6%), and comorbidities (contribution -22.9%). Conclusions: Older patients with hypertension in rural areas had more depressive symptoms than their counterparts residing in urban areas, which could be explained by years of education, self-reported income status, exercise, sleep duration, ADL dysfunction, and comorbidities. Factors influencing depressive symptoms had similarities regarding exercise, sleep duration, self-reported income status, and ADL dysfunction as well as differences regarding age, gender, years of education, and alcohol consumption.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.018
Threshold uncertainty score0.035

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.020
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations7
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicDementia and Cognitive Impairment Research→French-language works237,207→