Search

BackgroundSeveral studies have reported weak associations between religious or spiritual belief and psychological health. However, most have been cross-sectional surveys in the USA, limiting inference about generalizability. An international longitudinal study of incidence of major depression gave us the opportunity to investigate this relationship further.MethodData were collected in a prospective cohort study of adult general practice attendees across seven countries. Participants were followed at 6 and 12 months. Spiritual and religious beliefs were assessed using a standardized questionnaire, and DSM-IV diagnosis of major depression was made using the Composite International Diagnostic Interview (CIDI). Logistic regression was used to estimate incidence rates and odds ratios (ORs), after multiple imputation of missing data.ResultsThe analyses included 8318 attendees. Of participants reporting a spiritual understanding of life at baseline, 10.5% had an episode of depression in the following year compared to 10.3% of religious participants and 7.0% of the secular group (p < 0.001). However, the findings varied significantly across countries, with the difference being significant only in the UK, where spiritual participants were nearly three times more likely to experience an episode of depression than the secular group [OR 2.73, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.59–4.68]. The strength of belief also had an effect, with participants with strong belief having twice the risk of participants with weak belief. There was no evidence of religion acting as a buffer to prevent depression after a serious life event.ConclusionsThese results do not support the notion that religious and spiritual life views enhance psychological well-being. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

BackgroundThe different incidence rates of, and risk factors for, depression in different countries argue for the need to have a specific risk algorithm for each country or a supranational risk algorithm. We aimed to develop and validate a predictD-Spain risk algorithm (PSRA) for the onset of major depression and to compare the performance of the PSRA with the predictD-Europe risk algorithm (PERA) in Spanish primary care.MethodA prospective cohort study with evaluations at baseline, 6 and 12 months. We measured 39 known risk factors and used multi-level logistic regression and inverse probability weighting to build the PSRA. In Spain (4574), Chile (2133) and another five European countries (5184), 11 891 non-depressed adult primary care attendees formed our at-risk population. The main outcome was DSM-IV major depression (CIDI).ResultsSix variables were patient characteristics or past events (sex, age, sex×age interaction, education, physical child abuse, and lifetime depression) and six were current status [Short Form 12 (SF-12) physical score, SF-12 mental score, dissatisfaction with unpaid work, number of serious problems in very close persons, dissatisfaction with living together at home, and taking medication for stress, anxiety or depression]. The C-index of the PSRA was 0.82 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.79–0.84]. The Integrated Discrimination Improvement (IDI) was 0.0558 [standard error (s.e.)=0.0071, Zexp=7.88, p<0.0001] mainly due to the increase in sensitivity. Both the IDI and calibration plots showed that the PSRA functioned better than the PERA in Spain.ConclusionsThe PSRA included new variables and afforded an improved performance over the PERA for predicting the onset of major depression in Spain. However, the PERA is still the best option in other European countries. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

BackgroundThere are no risk models for the prediction of anxiety that may help in prevention. We aimed to develop a risk algorithm for the onset of generalized anxiety and panic syndromes.MethodFamily practice attendees were recruited between April 2003 and February 2005 and followed over 24 months in the UK, Spain, Portugal and Slovenia (Europe4 countries) and over 6 months in The Netherlands, Estonia and Chile. Our main outcome was generalized anxiety and panic syndromes as measured by the Patient Health Questionnaire. We entered 38 variables into a risk model using stepwise logistic regression in Europe4 data, corrected for over-fitting and tested it in The Netherlands, Estonia and Chile.ResultsThere were 4905 attendees in Europe4, 1094 in Estonia, 1221 in The Netherlands and 2825 in Chile. In the algorithm four variables were fixed characteristics (sex, age, lifetime depression screen, family history of psychological difficulties); three current status (Short Form 12 physical health subscale and mental health subscale scores, and unsupported difficulties in paid and/or unpaid work); one concerned country; and one time of follow-up. The overall C-index in Europe4 was 0.752 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.724–0.780]. The effect size for difference in predicted log odds between developing and not developing anxiety was 0.972 (95% CI 0.837–1.107). The validation of predictA resulted in C-indices of 0.731 (95% CI 0.654–0.809) in Estonia, 0.811 (95% CI 0.736–0.886) in The Netherlands and 0.707 (95% CI 0.671–0.742) in Chile.ConclusionsPredictA accurately predicts the risk of anxiety syndromes. The algorithm is strikingly similar to the predictD algorithm for major depression, suggesting considerable overlap in the concepts of anxiety and depression. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]