Research overview
The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by
ObjectivesThe objective of this study was to study the interrelations of demoralization, depression, and resilience in patients with Parkinson disease, and, more specifically, to determine if higher resilience in patients with Parkinson disease is associated with lower demoralization, lower depression, or both.MethodsOutpatients with Parkinson disease (N = 95) were assessed for demoralization, depression, and resilience, as well as sociodemographic, clinical, and treatment-related variables. Bivariable associations, standard regressions, linear regression with copula correction, and correspondence analysis were used to analyze the data.ResultsAlthough the bivariable association between resilience and depression was statistically significant, the association ceased to be significant when demoralization was taken into consideration in both standard regressions and linear regression with copula correction. By contrast, the association between resilience and demoralization was significant when depression was not taken into consideration and continued to be significant when depression was taken into consideration. Correspondence analysis revealed that low resilience was strongly related to demoralization combined with depression, whereas normal resilience was closely correlated with depression without demoralization.ConclusionThese results expand our understanding of resilience by suggesting that it is a mechanism evolved to reduce or prevent demoralization and not just depression. Reducing demoralization and strengthening resilience as part of a comprehensive treatment plan are likely to improve the prognosis of Parkinson disease.
Scientific assessment
Research question
Assess the question within the original study’s scope.
Methods & sample
Check the source article for study design and sample details.
Key findings
An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.
Limitations
Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.
Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.