Morbidity profiles in Europe and Israel: international comparisons from 20 countries using biopsychosocial indicators of health via latent class analysis

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Aim

I examined health/morbidity profiles across 20 countries, determined their associated demographic characteristics and risk factors and compared the distribution of these health/morbidity profiles across countries.

Subject and methods

I used population-based data drawn from the European Social Survey ( N = 20092, 52% female, ages 40+) covering 20 mostly European countries (Austria, Belgium, Czechia, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Lithuania, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) from 2014. Diverse indicators of health/morbidity were used, including self-rated health, self-rated disability, self-reported health problems and mental health symptoms using the CES-D. Latent class analysis was conducted to determine health/morbidity profiles across countries.

Results

I found that four distinct health profiles best describe overall health/morbidity status in the international sample, each associated with specific demographic and behavioural risk factors: ‘healthy’ profile (62% of participants), ‘unhappy but healthy’ profile (14%), ‘high morbidity, mostly physical’ profile (16%) and ‘high morbidity, mostly psychological’ profile (8%). With few exceptions, participants from Northern Europe and Western Europe were more likely to belong to the ‘healthy’ and the ‘unhappy but healthy’ profiles, whereas participants from Eastern Europe were more likely to belong to the ‘high morbidity, mostly physical’ profile. Distribution of the ‘high morbidity, mostly psychological’ profile appeared to be more uniform across regions.

Conclusions

Distinct morbidity/health profiles could be identified across countries, and countries varied regarding the relative distribution of these profiles. Specific prevention and treatment consequences associated with each profile are discussed. Future studies should further investigate the patterns of overall health and morbidity in Europe’s populations.

Related collections

Most cited references 38

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

The weirdest people in the world?

Joseph Henrich, Steven Heine, Ara Norenzayan (2010)

Behavioral scientists routinely publish broad claims about human psychology and behavior in the world's top journals based on samples drawn entirely from Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies. Researchers - often implicitly - assume that either there is little variation across human populations, or that these "standard subjects" are as representative of the species as any other population. Are these assumptions justified? Here, our review of the comparative database from across the behavioral sciences suggests both that there is substantial variability in experimental results across populations and that WEIRD subjects are particularly unusual compared with the rest of the species - frequent outliers. The domains reviewed include visual perception, fairness, cooperation, spatial reasoning, categorization and inferential induction, moral reasoning, reasoning styles, self-concepts and related motivations, and the heritability of IQ. The findings suggest that members of WEIRD societies, including young children, are among the least representative populations one could find for generalizing about humans. Many of these findings involve domains that are associated with fundamental aspects of psychology, motivation, and behavior - hence, there are no obvious a priori grounds for claiming that a particular behavioral phenomenon is universal based on sampling from a single subpopulation. Overall, these empirical patterns suggests that we need to be less cavalier in addressing questions of human nature on the basis of data drawn from this particularly thin, and rather unusual, slice of humanity. We close by proposing ways to structurally re-organize the behavioral sciences to best tackle these challenges.

0 comments Cited 1511 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Screening for Depression in the General Population with the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D): A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis

Gemma Vilagut, Carlos G. Forero, Gabriela Barbaglia … (2016)

Objective We aimed to collect and meta-analyse the existing evidence regarding the performance of the Center for Epidemiologic Studies Depression (CES-D) for detecting depression in general population and primary care settings. Method Systematic literature search in PubMed and PsychINFO. Eligible studies were: a) validation studies of screening questionnaires with information on the accuracy of the CES-D; b) samples from general populations or primary care settings; c) standardized diagnostic interviews following standard classification systems used as gold standard; and d) English or Spanish language of publication. Pooled sensitivity, specificity, likelihood ratios and diagnostic odds ratio were estimated for several cut-off points using bivariate mixed effects models for each threshold. The summary receiver operating characteristic curve was estimated with Rutter and Gatsonis mixed effects models; area under the curve was calculated. Quality of the studies was assessed with the QUADAS tool. Causes of heterogeneity were evaluated with the Rutter and Gatsonis mixed effects model including each covariate at a time. Results 28 studies (10,617 participants) met eligibility criteria. The median prevalence of Major Depression was 8.8% (IQ range from 3.8% to 12.6%). The overall area under the curve was 0.87. At the cut-off 16, sensitivity was 0.87 (95% CI: 0.82–0.92), specificity 0.70 (95% CI: 0.65–0.75), and DOR 16.2 (95% CI: 10.49–25.10). Better trade-offs between sensitivity and specificity were observed (Sensitivity = 0.83, Specificity = 0.78, diagnostic odds ratio = 16.64) for cut-off 20. None of the variables assessed as possible sources of heterogeneity was found to be statistically significant. Conclusion The CES-D has acceptable screening accuracy in the general population or primary care settings, but it should not be used as an isolated diagnostic measure of depression. Depending on the test objectives, the cut-off 20 may be more adequate than the value of 16, which is typically recommended.