Cited by 65Stroke Rehabilitation and RecoveryCancer survivorship and careCardiac Health and Mental Health

General Self-Efficacy as a Driving Factor of Post-Stroke Depression: A Longitudinal Study

Volz, Matthias, Voelkle, Manuel C., Werheid, Katja·2019·Neuropsychological Rehabilitation

Abstract

Post-stroke depression (PSD) is the most common psychiatric condition after stroke, affecting one third of survivors. Despite identification of meaningful predictors, knowledge about the interplay between these factors remains fragmentary. General self-efficacy (GSE) is closely linked to PSD, yet direction and magnitude of this relationship remains unclear. The authors assessed the relationship between GSE and depression during the first two years post-stroke while controlling for stable inter-individual differences using continuous time (CT) structural equation modelling (SEM). Patients of two German rehabilitation centres (N = 294, mean age = 63.78 years, SD = 10.83) were assessed six weeks after ischemic stroke and at four follow-ups covering two years. GSE Scale and Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) were used to assess GSE and depression. CT-analysis revealed significantly higher within-person cross-effects of GSE on GDS (a21 = −.29) than vice versa (a12 = −.17). Maximal cross-lagged effects emerged six months post-stroke. Our results show that decreasing GSE led to increasing depressiveness, and only to a smaller extent vice versa. This suggests that fostering GSE by strengthening perceived control after stroke can counter PSD emersion and exacerbation. Six months post-stroke, when patients face social re-integration, programmes focusing on GSE could potentially help to prevent later PSD.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/09602011.2017.1418392

Cites

47 of 47 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
Volz, M., Voelkle, M. C., & Werheid, K.
Affiliations
Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
Corresponding author
Volz, Matthias
Venue
Neuropsychological Rehabilitation
Published
2018-01-04
Volume
29
Issue
9
Pages
1426-1438
ISSN
  • 0960-2011 (ISSN-L)
  • 1464-0694
OpenAlex
W2782098470
Cited by
65
References
47
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 2
FWCI
5.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuropsychological Rehabilitation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • FreiDok plus (Universitätsbibliothek Freiburg) (submittedVersion)
  • PUB – Publications at Bielefeld University (Bielefeld University) (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Humboldt University
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Rehabilitation › Stroke Rehabilitation and Recovery
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
Keywords
post-stroke depression, general self-efficacy, ischemic stroke, perceived control, within-person effects, cross-lagged effects, stroke rehabilitation, social reintegration, depression prevention
MeSH terms
Aged, Brain Ischemia, Depressive Disorder, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Humans, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Middle Aged, Self Efficacy, Stroke

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