European Journal of Cardiovascular Medicine

Depression is a mental illness in which the mood becomes low, feel tired and interest in activities also decreases. When these symptoms persist for a long time, along with changes in appetite, sleep patterns and daily activities start getting disrupted, then diagnosis of depression must be considered. ⁽¹⁾ The prevalence of depression is higher in women (4.1%) than in men (2.7%). ⁽²⁾ The prevalence of depression across the human life span is 16.2 %. ⁽³⁾  If a person remains in depression for a long time it causes hindrance in his quality of life and the occupational potential of the person also reduces. ⁽⁴⁾ Every person lives in a society and many times he compares himself with other people and when he finds himself inferior in comparison to others, a feeling of inferiority develops in him. This inferiority complex often leads to depression. In our study, we tried to study some such socio demographic variables which can cause depression.

AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:

To study socio demographic variables in patients of major depressive disorder and in healthy controls.

The Present Cross-sectional Study was Conducted in the Department of Biochemistry and Department of Psychiatry of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College and M.Y. Hospital Indore, Madhya Pradesh. The study was approved and permitted by the institutional scientific and ethical committee of Mahatma Gandhi Memorial Medical College Indore, Madhya Pradesh. Date of approval was 16/02/ 2019 and reference number of approval was EC/MGM/feb-19/50. The period of study was from May 2019 to April 2020.

The present study included 50 newly diagnosed drug naive cases of depression of age group 18-50 years, attending Psychiatry OPD in M.Y. Hospital and 50 apparently healthy controls matched for same age and sex were taken. The subjects were enrolled for the study after obtaining written consent.

Diagnosis of depression is confirmed by treating Psychiatrist on clinical interview fulfilling the criteria of ICD-10. The severity of depressive symptoms was measured using the Hamilton Depression Rating Scale (HAM-D).

Inclusion Criteria:

Newly diagnosed and confirmed cases of depression, Subjects in the age group of 18-50 years. Patient ready to give written informed consent.

Exclusion Criteria:

Patients with atypical depression, recurrent depression, bipolar depression and any other psychiatric disorders, Patients   on   antidepressant drugs, Pregnant and lactating females, patients having dependence of alcohol or smoking, Patients with any autoimmune inflammatory disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, ankylosing spondylitis, psoriatic arthritis, diabetes etc, Patients   having mental retardation, Patients having serious medical ailments (cancer, bed ridden patients)

Data Collection and Statistics:

1. Student t test for two sample means was applied to calculate the significant difference the mean values of different numeric parameters of two groups.
2. One-way ANOVA was applied to compare the mean difference between mean values of any parameters between three and more groups, followed by POST Hoc tukey test for individual group comparison.
3. Chi Square Test was applied to determine the association between two variables. The different parameter distribution was associated with different morbidities by using the Chi square test. 

The P Value <0.05 will be considered as level of significance.

Microsoft Excel and R Studio (Open source analytical tool V 1.2.335) was used to perform the basic calculation, presentation and statistical analysis of data.

Table – 1. Age wise Distribution Status of Studied Sample

Figure – 1. Age wise Distribution Status of Studied Sample

Table– 2. Gender wise Distribution of Studied Sample

Figure –2. Gender wise Distribution of Studied Sample

Table –3. Marital status of studied sample

Figure – 3. Marital status of studied sample

Table – 4. Religion wise distribution of studied sample

Figure – 4. Religion wise distribution of studied sample

Table – 5. Education wise distribution of studied sample

Figure – 5. Education wise distribution of studied sample

Table– 6. Occupation wise distribution of studied sample

Figure – 6. Occupation wise distribution of studied sample

TABLE – 7. Socioeconomic distribution of study sample

Table – 8. Family Type wise distribution of studied sample

Figure – 7. Family Type wise distribution of studied sample

Table– 9. Locality wise distribution of studied sample

Figure –8. Locality wise distribution of studied sample

1. Patients belonging to Case group show the highest percentage (38%) for 21-30 years while lowest percentage (12%) was observed in <=20 years of age group. Similarly, subjects belonging to Control group show the highest
2. percentage (38%) for 21-30 years while none for <=20 years of age group. (Table 1, Figure 1)
3. Patients belonging to Case group show higher percentage (62%) for female while it was 38% for male. Similarly, subjects belonging to Control group show higher percentage (52%) for male while it was 48% for female. Patients does not differ significantly with their gender (P ˃0.05) (Table 2, Figure 2)
4. Patients belonging to Case group show the highest percentage (68%) for married while it was an equal percentage (2%) for divorced and widow. Similarly, subjects belonging to Control group show the highest percentage (66%) for married while none for divorced and widow. (Table 3, Figure 3)
5. Patients belonging to Case group show the highest percentage (84%) for Hindu while none for Sikh and Christian. Similarly, subjects belonging to Control group show the highest percentage (92%) for Hindu while, an equal percentage (2%) for Sikh and Christian. Subjects does not differ significantly with their religion (P ˃0.05).  (Table 4, Figure 4)
6. Patients belonging to case group show the highest percentage (22%) for up to 8^th, while lowest percentage (10%) for illiterate. On the other hand, subjects belonging to control group show the highest percentage (64%) for graduate, while lowest percentage (2%) for illiterate. patients differ significantly with education they had (P˂0.05) (Table 5, Figure 5)
7. Patients belonging to case group show the highest percentage (58%) for Unemployed while the lowest percentage (4%) for Professional. On the other hand, subjects belonging to Control Group show the highest percentage (40%) for professional while, show the lowest percentage (2%) for unskilled. Group of patients differs significantly with occupation they had (P˂0.05) (Table 6, Figure 6)
8. Maximum number of case (60%) were belongs to low socioeconomic group while in control group maximum belongs to upper socioeconomic group (58%). (Table 7)
9. Patients belonging to Case group show higher percentage (76%) for nuclear while 24% for joint family. Similarly, subjects belonging to Control group show higher percentage (82%) for nuclear while 18% for joint family. significant patients do not differ significantly with their family type (P ˃0.05) (Table 8, Figure 7)
10. Patients belonging to Case group show higher percentage (74%) for urban while 26% for Rural. Similarly, subjects belonging to Control group show higher percentage (64%) for urban while it was 36% for rural. group of subjects does not differ significantly with their locality. (P ˃0.05) (Table 9, Figure 8)

Out of the cases, maximum (38%) were found in the age group of 21-30 years. These results are nearly consistent with previous finding by R. Ponnudurai et al., ⁽⁵⁾ who found that peak incidence of depression was observed in the age group of 26-45 years.

In the case group, 62% were female and 38% were male. Patten SB et al. ⁽⁶⁾ also reported in their study that depression was more prevalent among women than men.

In the case group, 68% of the cases were found to be married and 28% of the cases were found to be unmarried. Sharma et al., ⁽⁷⁾ also found more depression among married subjects in their study. Religion wise distribution of depression in our study, 84% cases were found among Hindus. Contrary to the findings of our study Nandi DN et al., ⁽⁸⁾ found more cases of depression in Muslim community in their study. 36% of depression cases were educated up to higher secondary or above, whereas in the control group,76% subjects were found to be higher secondary or above educated. 

In occupation,58% of cases were found unemployed in the case group while 20 % of subjects were found unemployed in the control group.

60% of the cases in the case group were found to be low socio-economic status whereas in the control group,58% subjects were found to be of upper socio-economic status. These results are also supported by study of Jain RK et al., ⁽⁹⁾ who also found that depression is more common in low social class, unemployed condition, low educational level.

76% of depression cases and 82% of control group subjects were found to be from nuclear families. Sethi BB and Sharma M ⁽¹⁰⁾ has demonstrated association between depression and family constellation. 74% subjects in the case group and 64% subjects in the control group belonged to urban locality. Similar result by Reddy VM et al., ⁽¹¹⁾ revealed higher prevalence of depression for urban sector

We studied social demographic variables and also compared the prevalence among them. Maximum cases were belonging to 21-30year age group, were female, married, Hindu, educated up to higher secondary, unemployed, low socioeconomic group, lived in nuclear family and urban locality. Whereas maximum controls were Belonging to 21-30year age group, were male, married, Hindu, educated up to graduation, professionals by occupation, upper socioeconomic group, lived in nuclear family, in urban locality. Hence, in our study we found a significant association between depression and different social demographic variables.

Limitation of the study

The limitation of this study lies in its relatively small sample size.

Acknowledgement

We are thankful to lab technical staff of clinical biochemistry department of MGM Medical college Indore, Madhya Pradesh, India for their support in carrying out this work.

Conflict of interest: Nil

Funding: Nil

1. Donald W. Black and Jon E. Grant.The Essential Companion to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 5th edn.(567 pp., ISBN 9781585624652). American Psychiatric Association Publishing: Arlington, Virginia, 2014.
2. Mental Health by Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser , Mental Health.URL: https://ourworldindata.org/mental-health
3. Miller S, Dell’Osso B, Ketter TA.2014. The prevalence and burden of bipolar depression .J. Journal of Affective Disorders.Vol.No. 169.p S3-S11.DOI: 10.1016/s0165-0327(14)70003-5
4. EJ Daly, MH Trivedi, SR Wisniewski, AA Nierenberg, BN Gaynes, D Warden, DW Morris. Health-related quality of life in depression: A STAR D report. PubMed.URL: https:// pubmed. ncbi.nlm. nih. gov/ 20196982/.
5. Ponnudurai, O.Somasundaram, S.Balakrishnan and Nirmala Srinivasan.Indian .Depression –A study of 80 cases. J Psychiatry 1981 Jul Sep ; 23(3):256-258 PMC 3012955,PMID:22064611
6. Patten SB, Wang JL, Williams JV, et al. Descriptive epidemiology of major depression in Canada. Can J Psychiatry. 2006;51:84–90.
7. Sharma DK, Satija DC, Nathawat SS. Psychological determinants of depression in old age. Indian J Psychiatry. 1985;27:83–90.
8. Nandi DN, Banerjee G, Boral GC, Ganguli H, Ajmany(Sachdev) S, Ghosh A, Sarkar S. Socio-economic status and prevalence of mental disorders in certain rural communities in India. ActaPsychiatr Scand.1979 Mar;59(3):276-93.
9. Jain RK, Aras RY. Depression in geriatric population in urban slums of Mumbai. Indian J Pub Health. 2007;51:112–3.
10. Sethi BB, Sharma M. Depressive disorders and family constellation. Indian J Psychiatry. 1980;22:69–73.
11. Reddy MV, Chandrashekhar CR. Prevalence of mental and behavioural disorders in India: A metaanalysis. Indian J Psychiatry. 1998;40:149–57.