Dissemin is shutting down on January 1st, 2025

Published in

SAGE Publications, Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry and Neurology, 3(27), p. 147-158, 2014

DOI: 10.1177/0891988714527514

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Risk Factors for Poststroke Depression

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Red circle
Published version: archiving forbidden
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Objective: Depression after stroke or poststroke depression (PSD) has a negative impact on the rehabilitation process and the associated rehabilitation outcome. Consequently, defining risk factors for development of PSD is important. The relationship between stroke and depression is described extensively in the available literature, but the results are inconsistent. The aim of this systematic review is to outline conflicting evidence on risk factors for PSD. Methods: PubMed, Medline, and Web of Knowledge were searched using the keywords “stroke,” “depression,” and “risk factor” for articles published between January 01, 1995, and September 30, 2012. Additional articles were identified and obtained from a hand search in related articles and reference lists. Results: A total of 66 article abstracts were identified by the search strategy and 24 articles were eligible for inclusion based on predefined quality criteria. The methodology varies greatly between the various studies, which is probably responsible for major differences in risk factors for PSD reported in the literature. The most frequently cited risk factors for PSD in the literature are sex (female), history of depression, stroke severity, functional impairments or level of handicap, level of independence, and family and social support. Conclusions: Many risk factors are investigated over the last 2 decades and large controversy exists concerning risk factors for development of PSD. These contradictions may largely be reduced to major differences in clinical data, study population, and methodology, which underline the need for more synchronized studies.