Q2. What have the authors stated for future works in "Natural course of recurrent psychological distress in adulthood" ?
These findings add evidence to support a continuum between subclinical symptoms and clinical disorders, and underscore the need for further research on the course, prognosis, and recurrence of psychological distress. The study sponsors had no further role in study design ; in the collection, analysis and interpretation of data ; in the writing of the report ; and in the decision to submit the paper for publication.
Q3. What was the effect of marriage on the health benefits of being married?
Marriage had a protective effect against accumulating psychological distress, which was expected in light of the health benefits of being married (Stack and Eshleman, 1998).
Q4. What are the main factors that affect future GHQ?
ethnicity, marital status, and alcohol abstinence became stronger predictors of future GHQ caseness in participants with a longer history of GHQ caseness, suggesting that chronic distress may render individualsmore vulnerable to riskmarkers and their correlates.
Q5. What was the effect of treatment on the overall results?
At Phase7, 3.5%of theparticipants reportedusinganti-depressiveor anti-anxiety medication, suggesting that the prevalence of clinical depression or anxiety in the sample was relatively low and that treatment was unlikely to substantially bias the overall results.
Q6. What were the risk markers for the Whitehall II study?
Sociodemographic risk markers included sex, socioeconomic status (SES; civil service occupational grade, 0=low, 1=intermediate, 2=high), ethnicity (0=white, 1=other), and marital status (0=married, 1=single, 2=divorced/ separated, 3=widowed).
Q7. What is the effect of divorce on the health of divorced individuals?
Although divorced individuals often have poorer health, an increasing number of longitudinal studies show that becoming divorced may actually increase subjective well-being – or at least attenuate distress that has built up years before the break-up (Andress and Brockel, 2007; Booth and Amato, 1991; Gardner and Oswald, 2006).
Q8. What were the effects of cumulative GHQ on risk markers?
Most of the interaction effects between cumulative GHQ and risk markers were in the expected directions, e.g., increasing risk of GHQ caseness was associated with a combination of prior distress and low SES or ethnic minority origin.
Q9. What influences the probability of being a GHQ case at the next phase?
The influence of physical activity, smoking, and obesity on the probability of being a GHQ case at the next phase was not modified by GHQ history.
Q10. How does the inter-action effect affect the probability of future GHQ?
the significant inter-action effect indicates that this increased odds decreases by a factor of 0.95 for each unit increase in the cumulative GHQ score.
Q11. What is the effect of prior history of GHQ on future caseness?
Perhaps surprisingly, however, prior history of GHQ caseness predicted future GHQ caseness less strongly in divorced participants than in married or single participants.
Q12. What is the relationship between divorce and future GHQ caseness?
The nature of these GHQ history-dependent association was similar to the main effects presented in Model 1, with one exception: compared to being married, divorce was associated with a lower risk of future GHQ caseness among individuals with a high cumulative GHQ score, although among individualswith a cumulativeGHQscoreof 0, divorcewas associatedwith 16%higher risk of futureGHQ caseness (Model 1, Table 2).
Q13. What is the effect of a cumulative history of psychological distress on future distress?
a cumulative history of psychological distress modified the effects of socioeconomic and behavior-related risk markers on future distress.