Home › Research › Health systems and care delivery
Prevalence of depression and depression recognition in nursing homes
Teresi J, Abrams R, Holmes D, Ramirez M, Eimicke J.. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 2001-12-01
Topic: Health services, long-term care and technology
Background The aim of this study was to estimate the prevalence of depression among nursing home residents, and the extent of depression recognition among nursing home staff. Random samples totaling 319 nursing home residents, drawn from a simple random sample of six downstate New York nursing homes were evaluated psychiatrically for depression. Samples of nurse aides, nurses and social workers also assessed the same residents for the presence of depressive symptomatology. Method Psychiatrists assessed residents using the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-III-R) criteria. Depression measures used were the Cornell Scale for Depression in Dementia, the Feeling Tone Questionnaire, the Hamilton Depression Rating and the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-III-R Personality Disorders Scale. Nursing and social services staff assessed residents using Depression Recognition Measures. Results Based on psychiatric evaluation, the prevalence estimate for probable and/or definite major depressive disorder among testable subjects was 14.4% (95% CI of 10.6%-19.3%); 15.4% were not able to be assessed due to their refusal, impairment of consciousness, or severe physical illness. The estimate for minor depression was 16.8% (95% CI of 12.6%-21.9%). The prevalence of significant depressive symptomatology (including the category of possible depression) was 44.2% (95% CI of 38.2%-50.3%). The corresponding estimates of any depression were 19.7% for social workers, 29% for nurses and 32.1% for nurse aides. Conclusions The prevalence of depressive disorders among nursing home residents is high; depression recognition is relatively low, with only 37%-45% of cases diagnosed by psychiatrists recognized as depressed by staff. A structured Depression Recognition Scale increased the rates of recognition (sensitivity of staff ratings) to 47%-55%, demonstrating the utility of the scale in increasing awareness of symptomatology.
Cite this study APA, Vancouver, BibTeX · download .bib or .ris
APA 7th
Teresi, J., Abrams, R., Holmes, D., Ramirez, M., & Eimicke, J. (2001). Prevalence of depression and depression recognition in nursing homes. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s127-001-8202-7
Vancouver
Teresi J, Abrams R, Holmes D, Ramirez M, Eimicke J. Prevalence of depression and depression recognition in nursing homes. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2001. doi:10.1007/s127-001-8202-7. PMID: 11838834.
BibTeX
@article{teresi2001-11838834,
author = {Teresi, J. and Abrams, R. and Holmes, D. and Ramirez, M. and Eimicke, J.},
title = {{Prevalence of depression and depression recognition in nursing homes}},
journal = {Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology},
year = {2001},
doi = {10.1007/s127-001-8202-7},
pmid = {11838834},
url = {https://doi.org/10.1007/s127-001-8202-7}
}
Built from the record alzhub holds for this paper, not looked up. Volume, issue and page numbers are not held in the record. Check the citation against the original before you use it.
Key findings
- Results Based on psychiatric evaluation, the prevalence estimate for probable and/or definite major depressive disorder among testable subjects was 14.4% (95% CI of 10.6%-19.3%); 15.4% were not able to be assessed due to their refusal, impairment of consciousness, or severe physical illness.
- The prevalence of significant depressive symptomatology (including the category of possible depression) was 44.2% (95% CI of 38.2%-50.3%).
Study details
- Effect size14.4%; 10.6%; 19.3%
- Evidence strengthLow
How this study scored 40/100
Published in a peer-reviewed journal. Scored zero for study design, sample size, studied in people and randomized / blinded because the record does not state it. We have no data on journal's citation record, times cited, citations per year, impact for its field and year, cited by studies here, still being cited, senior author's track record, institution's track record and multicenter collaboration, so those were left out: it earned 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on, which is 40 out of 100.
| Component | Points | Why |
|---|---|---|
| Journal tier | 7 / 10 | Tier 3 — peer-reviewed journal (Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology) |
| Journal's citation record | — / 4 | No journal record from OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Study design | 0 / 12 | No study design recorded — scores zero, not guessed (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Strength of evidence | 1 / 5 | Rated “low” in our summary |
| Peer-review validation | 10 / 10 | Peer-reviewed. Published as an article in a named peer-reviewed journal. |
| How recent | 1 / 5 | 2001 — older than 20 years, still counted |
| Sample size | 0 / 4 | Participant count not stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Effect reported | 2 / 3 | Effect reported as a number, without an interval or test |
| Studied in people | 0 / 3 | Not stated whether this was studied in people — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Randomized / blinded | 0 / 2 | No randomization or blinding stated — scores zero (not stated in the record — scored 0) |
| Times cited | — / 7 | No citation count (not found in OpenAlex) — left out of this score |
| Citations per year | — / 5 | No citation count or no year — left out of this score |
| Impact for its field and year | — / 6 | No field-weighted citation impact (OpenAlex has none yet) — left out of this score |
| Cited by studies here | — / 6 | Not yet checked against this library's citation graph — left out of this score |
| Still being cited | — / 4 | No yearly citation counts — left out of this score |
| Senior author's track record | — / 4 | Senior author's record not available — left out of this score |
| Institution's track record | — / 3 | No institution listed in OpenAlex — left out of this score |
| Multicenter collaboration | — / 3 | Institutions not listed — left out of this score |
| Indexed in PubMed | 2 / 2 | Indexed in PubMed (PMID 11838834) |
| Free to read | 0 / 2 | Behind a paywall — scores zero |
| Points | 23 / 58 | Scored on 11 of 20 parts. We have no data for the rest, so they are left out: 23 of the 58 points we could judge it on is 40 out of 100. |
| Total | 40 / 100 | — |
What each of these 20 components measures, and what this score is not →
Read the original
Free copy unknown: no free-copy check has an answer for this record yet. That does not mean it is paywalled.
Related
Studies in the library that share something with this one. The line above each title says what.
Related studies in Health systems and care delivery
Also tagged “assisted-living”
199 studies in the library carry the topic tag “assisted-living”; these are this study's neighbours in a fixed, alphabetical-by-hash tour of them, not the closest in content. All 199 tagged studies.