Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorStapelberg, NJC
dc.contributor.authorNeumann, DL
dc.contributor.authorShum, DHK
dc.contributor.authorMcConnell, H
dc.contributor.authorHamilton-Craig, I
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-03T12:21:28Z
dc.date.available2017-05-03T12:21:28Z
dc.date.issued2013
dc.date.modified2014-04-01T05:49:09Z
dc.identifier.issn1573-4005
dc.identifier.doi10.2174/15734005113096660012
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/57615
dc.description.abstractAbstract: Background: A reciprocal association exists between Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD). A quantitative evaluation of this association is necessary to identify potential areas of clinical intervention. However, the association is unclear because of methodological differences and confounders across studies. This review examines the impact of methodology and confounding variables on the magnitude of the relationship between MDD and CHD. Methods: The search terms "major depression AND coronary heart disease" were entered into an electronic multiple database search engine. Abstracts were screened for relevance and individually selected articles were collated. Results: Nine methodological issues and three confounders are identified, which have contributed to uncertainty in the quantitative relationship between MDD and CHD. More quantitative, prospective longitudinal studies are needed, which use standard definitions for MDD and CHD and define clear outcomes. Studies should clearly establish the temporal relationship between the onset of depressed mood and one or more adverse cardiac events, should use quantitative measures of depression which are treated as continuous data, and have frequent measures of mental state over time, correlated with measures of cardiac health. Study design should avoid confounding by considering demographic factors, cardiac risk factors and management of MDD in CHD patients. Conclusions: This review raises the need for a standardised methodology in future research, taking into account the biases and confounders listed. Adopting a consensus approach to methodology will facilitate the quantitative exploration of the causal network linking MDD and CHD.
dc.description.peerreviewedYes
dc.description.publicationstatusYes
dc.languageEnglish
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherBentham Science Publishers
dc.publisher.placeNetherlands
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationY
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom342
dc.relation.ispartofpageto352
dc.relation.ispartofissue4
dc.relation.ispartofjournalCurrent Psychiatry Reviews
dc.relation.ispartofvolume9
dc.rights.retentionY
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCardiology (incl. cardiovascular diseases)
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical sciences
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCognitive and computational psychology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchClinical and health psychology
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode320101
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode3202
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode5204
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode5203
dc.titleThe Impact of Methodology and Confounding Variables on the Association Between Major Depression and Coronary Heart Disease: Review and Recommendations
dc.typeJournal article
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Articles
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articles
gro.facultyGriffith Health, School of Applied Psychology
gro.date.issued2013
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text
gro.griffith.authorNeumann, David L.
gro.griffith.authorHamilton-Craig, Ian


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record