Cited by 54Dialysis and Renal Disease ManagementHealth and Well-being StudiesCancer survivorship and care

Psychosocial risk and protective factors for depression in the dialysis population: A systematic review and meta-regression analysis

Chan, Ramony, Steel, Zachary, Brooks, Robert, Heung, Tracy, Erlich, Jonathan, Chow, Josephine, Suranyi, Michael·2011·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective Research into the association between psychosocial factors and depression in End-Stage Renal Disease (ESRD) has expanded considerably in recent years identifying a range of factors that may act as important risk and protective factors of depression for this population. The present study provides the first systematic review and meta-analysis of this body of research. Methods Published studies reporting associations between any psychosocial factor and depression were identified and retrieved from Medline, Embase, and PsycINFO, by applying optimised search strategies. Mean effect sizes were calculated for the associations across five psychosocial constructs (social support, personality attributes, cognitive appraisal, coping process, stress/stressor). Multiple hierarchical meta-regression analysis was applied to examine the moderating effects of methodological and substantive factors on the strength of the observed associations. Results 57 studies covering 58 independent samples with 5956 participants were identified, resulting in 246 effect sizes of the association between a range of psychosocial factors and depression. The overall mean effect size (Pearsons correlation coefficient) of the association between psychosocial factor and depression was 0.36. The effect sizes between the five psychosocial constructs and depression ranged from medium (0.27) to large levels (0.46) with personality attributes (0.46) and cognitive appraisal (0.46) having the largest effect size…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.05.002

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chan, R., Steel, Z., Brooks, R., Heung, T., Erlich, J., Chow, J., & Suranyi, M.
Affiliations
  • Liverpool Hospital (AU)
  • Western Sydney University (AU)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Corresponding author
Chan, Ramony
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2011-11
Volume
71
Issue
5
Pages
300-310
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1989170040
Cited by
54
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 4
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Nephrology › Dialysis and Renal Disease Management
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Health and Well-being Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
depression, end-stage renal disease, dialysis, psychosocial risk factors, protective factors, social support, personality traits, cognitive appraisal, coping, stress, moderating effect
MeSH terms
Depression, Depressive Disorder, Renal Dialysis, Humans, Kidney Failure, Chronic, Risk Factors, Social Support

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review