Psychiatric Epidemiology and Social Issues Unit, Centre for Research on Ageing, Health and Wellbeing, The Australian National University, ACT, Australia.
J Affect Disord. 2013 Jul;149(1-3):75-83. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2013.01.006. Epub 2013 Feb 8.
Depression is more common amongst those who are economically disadvantaged. However there is inconsistent evidence concerning the relationship between socioeconomic position and antidepressant use. Moreover, evidence of greater antidepressant use amongst those of lower socioeconomic position may reflect their greater psychiatric morbidity, a prescribing bias towards pharmacological treatments, or provide evidence of an effective social safety net. This study investigates these issues whilst addressing methodological limitations of earlier studies.
Data were from a large, random community survey of Australian adults (N=4493) with linked administrative data for primary-care service use. Depression was measured using the Patient Health Questionnaire, with other measures of current mental health and history of depression included in analysis. Multiple personal indicators and a combined measure of social disadvantage were considered. A series of analyses systematically examined competing explanations for socioeconomic differences in depression and antidepressant treatment.
Markers of socioeconomic disadvantage were associated with a greater likelihood of antidepressant use. This finding was not attributable to the higher rates of depression amongst the disadvantaged. A similar pattern of results was evident for non-pharmaceutical treatments (primary care consultations). Socioeconomic position was not associated with use of complementary medications for depression, not covered by Australia's social safety net.
Analysis did not consider specialist mental health services.
Socially disadvantaged respondents reported greater antidepressant use and service use after controlling for current depression symptoms. This pattern of findings suggests Australia's universal health-care system and social safety net may help address potential inequalities in health care.
在经济处于劣势的人群中,抑郁症更为常见。然而,关于社会经济地位与抗抑郁药使用之间的关系,证据并不一致。此外,社会经济地位较低的人群使用抗抑郁药的比例较高,这可能反映了他们更严重的精神疾病发病率,也可能反映了对药物治疗的处方偏见,或者提供了社会安全网有效的证据。本研究在解决早期研究方法局限性的同时,调查了这些问题。
数据来自澳大利亚成年人的一项大型随机社区调查(N=4493),并与初级保健服务使用的相关行政数据相链接。使用患者健康问卷来衡量抑郁情况,同时在分析中还包括了当前心理健康和抑郁史的其他衡量指标。考虑了多种个人指标和综合社会劣势指标。一系列分析系统地检验了社会经济差异与抑郁和抗抑郁治疗之间的竞争解释。
社会经济劣势的标志与使用抗抑郁药的可能性增加有关。这一发现并不是由于弱势群体中更高的抑郁率所致。对于非药物治疗(初级保健咨询),也存在类似的结果模式。社会经济地位与使用补充药物治疗抑郁症无关,而这些药物不在澳大利亚的社会安全网覆盖范围内。
分析未考虑专科精神卫生服务。
在控制当前抑郁症状后,社会劣势的受访者报告了更多的抗抑郁药使用和服务使用。这一发现模式表明,澳大利亚的全民医疗保健系统和社会安全网可能有助于解决医疗保健方面的潜在不平等问题。