SCIENTIFIC HUB

Follow the evidence.

SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE · MED

Depression and Mood Changes in People with Parkinson's Disease over Time: A 5-Year Follow-Up Study.

J Pers Med · 2026-07-10

DOI: 10.3390/jpm16070372PMID: 42506099

Open accessresearch-article; Journal ArticleOriginal source ↗

Research overview

The text below is the source article’s original abstract under a verified reuse license. cc by

Background and Objective: Depression is frequent in Parkinson's disease (PD), but it is unclear how mood changes and impacts patient's quality of life (QoL) over time. Our objective was to analyze the frequency of depression and mood changes in people with PD (PwP) over 5 years of follow-up, comparing it with a control group, as well as its relationship with the patients' QoL. Patients and Methods: PwP and healthy controls (HC) recruited from the COPPADIS cohort from January/2016 to November/2017 were included in this 5-year follow-up study. Mood was assessed by the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II), and participants were classified as having major depression, minor depression, subthreshold depression, or non-depression at baseline and at 2, 4, and 5 years of follow-up. Correlation analysis and linear regression models were applied. Results: The BDI-II total score increased from 8.1 ± 6.2 at baseline to 10.3 ± 8.1 at the 5-year follow-up visit in PwP (p p = 0.896]). The prevalence of depression remained around 50-54% in the PwP group and 21-25% in the HC group throughout the follow-up period, but the mood state showed variability for each patient between visits. Patients' QoL was associated with the depressive state throughout the entire follow-up period (p Conclusions: Mood change over time in PwP is associated with QoL.

Scientific assessment

01

Research question

Assess the question within the original study’s scope.

02

Methods & sample

Check the source article for study design and sample details.

03

Key findings

An editorially approved findings summary is not yet published for this record.

04

Limitations

Generalizability, bias and clinical meaning require separate assessment.

Methods, samples and clinical conclusions are not inferred from bibliographic metadata.