What is the main difference between dysthymia and major depressive disorder?

Magdalena Szaflarski,1,* Lisa A. Cubbins,2 Shawn Bauldry,1,** Karthikeyan Meganathan,3,** Daniel H. Klepinger,2 and Eugene Somoza4

Magdalena Szaflarski

1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Sociology, Birmingham, Alabama

Find articles by Magdalena Szaflarski

Lisa A. Cubbins

2Battelle Memorial Institute, Seattle, Washington

Find articles by Lisa A. Cubbins

Shawn Bauldry

1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Sociology, Birmingham, Alabama

Find articles by Shawn Bauldry

Karthikeyan Meganathan

3University of Cincinnati, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio

Find articles by Karthikeyan Meganathan

Daniel H. Klepinger

2Battelle Memorial Institute, Seattle, Washington

Find articles by Daniel H. Klepinger

Eugene Somoza

4University of Cincinnati, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Cincinnati, Ohio

Find articles by Eugene Somoza

Author information Copyright and License information Disclaimer

1University of Alabama at Birmingham, Department of Sociology, Birmingham, Alabama

2Battelle Memorial Institute, Seattle, Washington

3University of Cincinnati, Department of Family and Community Medicine, Cincinnati, Ohio

4University of Cincinnati, Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Neuroscience, Cincinnati, Ohio

*Corresponding author: Magdalena Szaflarski, Ph.D., Department of Sociology, University of Alabama at Birmingham, HHB 460Q, 1720 2nd Ave S, Birmingham, AL 35294-1152; phone: 205-975-5614; fax: 205-975-5614; ude.bau@malfazs

**Equal contribution to the manuscript.

Copyright notice

The publisher's final edited version of this article is available at J Immigr Minor Health

INTRODUCTION

Major depressive disorder (MDD) and dysthymia carry a significant human and social burden [1–3]. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) [4] classifies depressive disorders as mood disorders characterized by episodes of depressed mood. MDD is defined as one or more major depressive episodes – that is, at least two weeks of depressed mood or loss of interest accompanied by at least four additional symptoms of depression, for example, sleep disturbance, agitation, and fatigue. Dysthymia is characterized by at least two years of depressed mood for more days than not, accompanied by additional depressive symptoms that do not meet criteria for MDD. Not all racial and ethnic groups in the United States (US) are equally affected by depressive disorders [3, 5]. For example, non-Hispanic blacks are 40% less likely than non-Hispanic whites to experience depression in their lifetime [3]. Depression is also less common among newly arrived immigrants than US-natives [6–8]. The lower risk of depressive disorders among foreign-born has been reported in studies grouping immigrants into a single group [9, 10] or into racial-ethnic categories such as Hispanic [11], non-Hispanic black [12], non-Hispanic white [7], and Asian-American [13, 14]. However, exceptions to the lower risks have been found when grouping individuals by country or region of origin [6, 10, 15, 16]. In addition, any protective effect of foreign birth has been shown to wear off over time, resulting in the immigrants’ risk for depressive disorders resembling that of non-immigrants of the same national origin [14, 17].

Several explanations have been offered for differential risk of depressive disorders between the foreign-born and the US-born [18]. The acculturation explanation assumes that experiences that immigrants have after arrival in the host country can protect against or exacerbate mental health problems among immigrants. Acculturation may take several forms: assimilation, integration, separation, or marginalization [19, 20]. Integration is sometimes linked with favorable outcomes compared with other types of acculturation, but it is not true for all ethnic and immigrant groups. Acculturative experience intertwined with major life changes can result in stress which can manifest itself in poor mental health, feelings of alienation, and heightened psychosomatic symptoms [19]. The stress hypothesis points to psychosocial stressors as potential triggers for depressive disorders among immigrants. Stress is a multi-faceted, multilevel concept that is not easily defined [21]. In biological terms, it is a physiological response of the body in the presence of stressors, or “conditions of threat, challenge, demands, or structural constraints” (p. 300) [21]. Two types of stress – stressful life events, so-called “events stress,” and chronic stress, for example, experiences with discrimination – are often addressed from the psychosocial perspective and are known to affect mental health problems among minority populations [22, 23]. Stress can be buffered by social support, but social isolation and lack of social networks in the host country may deprive immigrants of needed emotional and instrumental support. This may be compounded by immigrant family separations and culture shock stemming from conflicting norms and values between the original and host society. Experiences of prejudice and discrimination in the host country based on race and ethnicity may cause additional stress for immigrants, leading to poorer mental health outcomes including depression [24] and lower assessments of mental well-being, for example as measured by the Mental Component Summary of the Medical Outcomes Study Short Form 12 [25].

Race, ethnicity, and nativity are overlapping but distinct concepts that have complex relationships to mental health. Research tends to treat these concepts separately and rarely as a primary focus of investigations [26]. Past research on depressive disorders among immigrants has also often excluded factors such as acculturation or discrimination, or, due to data limitations, has been unable to analyze differences in the onset and continuation of depressive disorders across different subgroups defined by race, ethnicity, and nativity. To close some of these gaps, the current study used US-based survey data to estimate variations in prevalent, acquired, and persisting major depressive and dysthymic disorders by race, ethnicity, and nativity while statistically adjusting for acculturation, social integration, stress, and sociodemographic factors. The first set of outcomes in the study was the prevalence rates of MDD and dysthymia, DSM-IV-based diagnoses. The second set of outcomes was the rates of acquired and persisting cases of MDD and dysthymia over a three-year period. The unique contribution of this study was the estimation of both prevalence and three-year changes in MDD and dysthymia among US adults based on nativity and racial-ethnic origin, before and after adjustment for substantive and sociodemographic factors.

METHODS

Data

The data for the study are derived from Wave 1 and Wave 2 of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC), a representative sample of the US civilian, non-institutionalized population of individuals 18 years or older [27–29]. Wave 1 was conducted during 2001–2002 while Wave 2 was conducted during 2004–2005. The sample sizes for Wave 1 and Wave 2 were 43,093 and 34,653, respectively. The time-frame for the study was three years. Further information about the NESARC can be found at http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/nesarc-iii.

A total of 3.6% of cases that had missing data on one or more outcome, nativity, or race-ethnicity variables were excluded from the analysis. Additional 9.1% of the data were missing on other independent variables, 0.02–1.5% per variable; these cases were excluded as the variables were entered into the analysis. Preliminary analyses showed no differences in results whether or not multiple imputation was used to recover missing values. The unweighted sample size for this analysis was 33,373 (see Appendix 1 for descriptive statistics) or 30,322, depending on the model being tested. This study was approved by the institutional review boards at the authors’ respective institutions.

Measurement

See Table 1. NESARC’s diagnostic classifications were based on the Alcohol Use Disorder and Associated Disability Interview Schedule—DSM-IV Version (AUDADIS-IV), a state-of-the-art, semi-structured diagnostic interview schedule designed for use by lay interviewers. The reliability and validity of this instrument have been documented in many studies [30]. The diagnostic questions for low mood assessment are very detailed and based on DSM-IV diagnostic criteria. Based on these questions, the NESARC constructed dichotomous variables for diagnoses of MDD and dysthymia. These NESARC-provided measures were refined as described in Table 1 for use in this study. All interview questions are available online at http://www.niaaa.nih.gov/research/nesarc-iii/questionnaire.

Table 1

Description of study measures

Dependent variables
Mood disorders were defined based on the DSM-IV and assessed by using a state-of-the-art
diagnostic interview [27–29]; minor deviations from the DSM-IV exclusion criteria are noted
below. The outcome variables were measured at Waves 1 and 2 as dummy-coded variables, with
individuals not having (0) or having (1) a condition at the given time.Major depression
disorder (MDD)MDD during the last 12 months was defined as depressed mood or loss of
pleasure and interest for at least most of the day for at least a 2-week period,
with endorsement of 4 out of 7 additional symptoms, excluding illness-
induced and substance-induced cases, cases due to bereavement, diagnoses
of manic or hypomanic disorder, and self-report of lifetime occurrence of
schizophrenia/psychotic illness (a proxy for schizoaffective disorder).DysthymiaDysthymia was defined as 2 years of depressed mood for more days than
not, with no longer than 2 months without depressive symptoms and
excluding manic or hypomanic episodes, self-reported
schizophrenia/psychotic illness (lifetime occurrences), and MDD in the last
12 months.Independent variables (substantive factors)aImmigrant background  NativityUS-born (primary reference group) versus born outside of 50 US states
(“foreign-born,” except Puerto Rico-natives)  Racial-ethnic
originSelf-report of the respondents’ race and ethnicity using country of origin or
racial-ethnic descent (59 response categories). Given that some groups had
small cell sizes, we used the following 6 racial-ethnic origin categories:
African, European, Asian/Pacific Islander, Mexican, Puerto Rican, and
other Hispanic/Latino.Acculturationb  English
language
preferenceSeven questions on language preference asked respondents about which
language: they generally read and speak; they spoke as a child; they usually
speak at home; they usually think in; they usually speak with friends; of the
TV and radio programs they usually listen to; and, of the movies and TV
and radio programs they prefer to watch and listen to. Response categories
for the 7 questions used a 5-point scale and were: only non-English
language (e.g., Spanish, Chinese, or another non-English language); more
non-English language than English; both equally; more English than non-
English language; and, only English. Factor analysis was used to generate a
single factor on language preference (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.970). Higher
values indicated greater acculturation (e.g., more use of English).  Years in USDifference between year of entry and year of birth for foreign-born and
individual’s age value for US-born respondents  Racial-ethnic
social
preferenceRespondents were asked how often, in the past year, they have felt that they
were not able to control the important things in their life; felt confident
about their ability to handle personal problems; felt things were going their
way; and, felt difficulties piling up so high that they could not overcome
them. The response categories for each question were: never, sometimes,
fairly often, and very often. The perceived stress scale was intended to
assess the cognitively mediated emotional response to objective stressful
events. Factor analysis was used to construct two perceived stress
measures: stress related to personal life (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70) and
stress related to a lack of control in life (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.64).  Racial-ethnic
orientationRespondents were asked how strongly they agreed or disagreed that: they
have a strong sense of self as a member of their racial-ethnic group; they
identify with other people from their racial-ethnic group; racial-ethnic
heritage is important in their life; and, they are proud of their racial-ethnic
heritage. The scale’s Cronbach’s alpha was 0.829. Higher values on the
measure indicated less identification with one’s own racial-ethnic group,
reflecting greater acculturation and assimilation.Stressb  Stressful life
eventsStressful life events was the total number of the following 12 events that
respondents reported experiencing in the 12 months prior to the interview:
any family member or close friend died; any family or close friend had
serious illness or injury; moved/anyone new came to live with you; fired or
laid off from a job; unemployed and looking for a job for more than a
month; trouble with their boss or a coworker; changed job, job
responsibilities, or work hours; marital separation or divorce or breakup of a
steady relationship; had problems with neighbor, friend, or relative;
financial crisis, declaration of bankruptcy, or being unable to pay their bills;
respondent or family member had serious trouble with the police or law;
and, respondent or family member being crime victim.  Perceived
stressRespondents were asked how often, in the past year, they have felt that they
were not able to control the important things in their life; felt confident
about their ability to handle personal problems; felt things were going their
way; and, felt difficulties piling up so high that they could not overcome
them. The response categories for each question were: never, sometimes,
fairly often, and very often. The perceived stress scale was intended to
assess the cognitively mediated emotional response to objective stressful
events. Factor analysis was used to construct two perceived stress
measures: stress related to personal life (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.70) and
stress related to a lack of control in life (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.64).  Perceived
racial-ethnic
discriminationRespondents were asked about how often they experienced discrimination
related to their race or ethnicity in a variety of situations during the last 12
months. These include experiencing discrimination in their ability to obtain
health care or health insurance; in how they are treated when they got health
care; in public, (on the street, in stores, or in restaurants); in any other
situation (jobs, school or training program, in courts or with police, or
obtaining housing); being called a racist name because of their race-
ethnicity; and, being made fun of, picked on, pushed, shoved, hit or
threatened with harm because of their race-ethnicity. All respondents were
asked these questions regardless of race or ethnicity, though the question
phrasing was more specific to type of race or ethnicity for respondents who
were Hispanic or of Asian/Pacific Islander descent. Factor analysis was
used to generate two factors indicating perceived discrimination related to
health care services (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75) and perceived discrimination
in other aspects of life (e.g., in jobs, schooling, housing, in businesses, or by
police; Cronbach’s alpha = 0.75).Social integrationb  Social
Network
IndexSocial Network Index indicated the total number of different types of people
respondents see or talk to on the phone or via internet at least once every
two weeks. The responses were used to create continuous (summed)
indicators for the number of close ties (e.g., grown children, own parents, or
close friends) and the number of instrumental ties (e.g., students, teachers,
or co-workers, or people in organizations at which they volunteer)
respondents have in their social network. Higher values indicated a larger
network.  Level of social
supportInterpersonal Support Evaluation List (ISEL12) had 6 questions on how true
it is respondents could find someone to help them or join them in a variety
of situations, including: help with daily chores if sick, seek advice about
handling problems with family, go to a movie, deal with personal problems,
have lunch, and get ride if stranded 10 miles from home. Factor analysis
was used to create a scale of level of social support (Cronbach’s alpha =
0.79). Higher values indicate higher levels of social support.

Open in a separate window

aAdditional variables included sociodemographic and health-related correlates: age, gender, marital status, number of children in the household, education, employment status, US region, community type, household income, health insurance, tobacco use, and religiosity

bData collected for all respondents regardless of nativity; assessed at Wave 2 only

Procedure of Analysis

The first set of outcomes in this study was the prevalence rates of MDD and dysthymia. The second set of outcomes was the rates of acquired and persisting cases of MDD and dysthymia over a three-year period. The analysis proceeded as follows.

First, statistics on the prevalence, or percent with standard error, of MDD and dysthymia by nativity and racial-ethnic origin were generated. The subsequent multivariable analysis entailed testing four predictive logistic regression models for each of the outcomes using a nested approach. The baseline model (Model 1) estimated the effects of nativity status on the likelihood of having MDD by race-ethnicity, without accounting for any other variables. US-born Europeans were used as the reference category; however, the reference category was rotated in the analyses to generate all nativity-origin comparisons. The baseline model of dysthymia did not include race-ethnicity due to having too few cases for several racial-ethnic categories. In this model, foreign-born and US-born (reference) were compared, without accounting for other factors. The next step involved testing models that built on the baseline models but added sociodemographic factors (Model 2), sociodemographic and health-related factors (Model 3), and sociodemographic and health-related and explanatory, or substantive, factors: acculturation, stress, and social integration variables (Model 4).

Finally, an assessment was conducted of the contribution of nativity, racial-ethnic origin, and substantive factors to the likelihood of 1) developing MDD or dysthymia over a three-year period (acquired cases=diagnosis at three years but not at baseline) and 2) continuing versus recovering from MDD or dysthymia over a three-year period (persisting cases=diagnosis both at baseline and at three-year follow-up). For these analyses, the count and percentage distributions with standard errors were first computed for the acquired and persisting cases, separately, by nativity and race-ethnicity for MDD and by nativity for dysthymia. Then logistic regression was used to model the likelihood of acquiring and continuing MDD over a three-year period by nativity and race-ethnicity, adjusting in a step-wise manner for sociodemographic, sociodemographic and health-related, and substantive factors. The primary reference category was US-born European, considering the group’s typically higher rates of depression compared with immigrants, but the reference category was rotated to conduct all pairwise group comparisons. The likelihood of acquiring and continuing dysthymia over a three-year period was examined by nativity only.

All statistical analyses were conducted using SAS software (version 9.3; SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Specifically, the survey-related procedures SURVEYMEANS, SURVEYFREQ, SURVEYREG and SURVEYLOGISTIC, which accommodate complex survey designs, were used. Thus, all estimates and tests accounted for the stratification, clustering, and unequal weighting in the sampling design. For all regression models, odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were generated.

FINDINGS

The prevalence of MDD was higher among US-born versus foreign-born, but dysthymia was more prevalent among foreign-born than US-born respondents (Table 2). The prevalence of MDD was the highest for Puerto Ricans (PR) and the lowest for Africans. Dysthymia was the most prevalent among “other Hispanics or Latinos” and the least prevalent among Africans. Furthermore, immigrants typically had lower rates of MDD or dysthymia compared with their US-born counterparts, with one exception: 10% of those born in Puerto Rico (PR-PR) had MDD, double the rate of US-born Puerto Ricans (PR-US).

Table 2

Prevalence of major depression disorder and dysthymia, total and by nativity and racial-ethnic origin: NESARC Wave 2

---

Major
DepressionDysthymia%SE%SETotal5.90.10.30.0Nativity****  US-born6.10.10.30.0  Foreign-born4.60.10.40.0Racial-ethnic origin****  African4.90.20.30.0  Asian/Pacific Islander5.10.20.30.0  European6.10.10.30.0  Mexican5.20.20.60.0  Puerto Rican7.10.10.40.0  Other Hispanic/Latino6.70.20.70.1Racial-ethnic origin × nativity  African****    US-born5.00.20.30.0    Foreign-born3.40.20.10.0  Asian/Pacific Islander****    US-born8.60.40.70.0    Foreign-born3.60.20.20.0  European****    US-born6.10.10.30.0    Foreign-born4.80.30.20.0  Mexican****    US-born6.30.30.20.0    Foreign-born4.30.10.90.0  Puerto Rican****    Born in US states4.90.10.30.0    Born in Puerto Rico10.30.10.40.0  Other Hispanic/Latino***    US-born8.20.50.90.2    Foreign-born5.60.10.50.0

Open in a separate window

Significant differences between nativity and racial-ethnic groups are indicated

*P < 0.05

**P < 0.01 (two-tailed test)

The findings from the multivariable analyses for prevalence of MDD and dysthymia (first set of outcomes) are presented first, followed by the findings for acquired and persisting cases of MDD and dysthymia (second set of outcomes).

Prevalence of MDD and Dysthymia by Nativity and Racial-Ethnic Origin

MDD

For most racial-ethnic origin groups, regression results confirmed a significantly lower likelihood of having MDD among immigrants compared to US-born Europeans in the unadjusted model (Table 3, Model 1). Odds ratios (OR) for the immigrant groups ranged between 0.426 for foreign-born Asians to 0.765 for foreign-born Europeans, but PR-PR were more likely (OR = 2.121) than US-born Europeans to have MDD. Examining pairwise differences (Appendix 2, Model 1) revealed that US-born Asians, Mexicans, and “other Hispanics or Latinos” were more likely than their foreign-born counterparts to have MDD. On the other hand, PR-US were less likely than PR-PR to have MDD (OR of 0.397; P < 0.001). There were no significant differences between foreign-born and US-born Africans.

Table 3

Modeling the prevalence of major depression disoder and dysthymia by nativity and racial-ethnic origin

Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Outcome = Major depression  African US- born0.833***0.681***0.697***0.590***[0.767,0.905][0.621,0.746][0.636,0.763][0.533,0.652]  African foreign-born0.714***0.744***0.795**1.391**[0.610,0.835][0.633,0.874][0.675,0.936][1.086,1.783]  Asian US-born1.372***1.159*1.174**1.174*[1.233,1.527][1.035,1.297][1.045,1.319][1.018,1.354]  Asian foreign- born0.426***0.506***0.542***0.724**[0.360,0.503][0.425,0.602][0.456,0.645][0.572,0.916]  European US-born (referent)  European foreign-born0.765***0.764***0.772**1.122[0.657,0.892][0.655,0.891][0.662,0.901][0.897,1.404]  Mexican US- born0.9810.763***0.815***0.754***[0.894,1.076][0.689,0.845][0.737,0.902][0.678,0.838]  Mexican foreign-born0.615***0.723***0.763***1.638***[0.555,0.680][0.653,0.800][0.689,0.846][1.445,1.858]  Puerto Rican born in US states0.841***0.662***0.670***0.643***[0.774,0.914][0.609,0.719][0.612,0.734][0.574,0.719]  Puerto Rican born in Puerto Rico2.121***2.436***2.595***4.288***[1.972,2.280][2.299,2.581][2.419,2.783][3.715,4.950]  Other Hispanic/Latino US-born1.481***1.296***1.322***1.392***[1.322,1.659][1.149,1.462][1.171,1.492][1.220,1.587]  Other Hispanic/Latino foreign-born0.561***0.597***0.640***1.021[0.491,0.640][0.512,0.695][0.547,0.749][0.863,1.208]

---

Outcome = Dysthymia  US-born (referent) Foreign-born1.456***1.397***1.622***1.876***[1.220,1.737][1.172,1.665][1.396,1.885][1.525,2.308]

Open in a separate window

Odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]. Model 1 is unadjusted. Model 2 adds sociodemographic variables. Model 3 adds sociodemographic and health-related variables. Model 4 adds sociodemographic and health-related variables as well as substantive factors (acculturation, stress, and social integration)

*P < 0.05

**P < 0.01

***P < 0.001 (two-tailed test)

The addition of sociodemographic and health-related factors did not substantively affect the pattern of associations among the different racial-ethnic origin groups (Table 3, Models 2–3). Adding the measures of acculturation, stress, and social integration, however, did alter the pattern of associations among some of the racial-ethnic groups (Model 5). In particular, US-born Africans and Mexicans and PR-US had lower likelihoods of MDD than their foreign-born counterparts (Appendix B, Model 4). On the other hand, US-born Asians and “other Hispanics or Latinos” continued to have higher likelihoods of MDD than their foreign-born counterparts. There was no difference observed between foreign-born and US-born Europeans in the fully adjusted model.

Dysthymia

Confirming our bivariate analyses, immigrants had a higher likelihood of having dysthymia than US-born (Table 3, Model 1). This association persisted with the inclusion of sociodemographic and health-related factors, and measures of acculturation, stress, and social integration (Table 3, Model 4).

Substantive factors

The measures of acculturation, stress, and social integration had significant associations with the likelihood of having MDD, adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related factors, and the associations were mostly in the expected direction (Table 4). Among the measures of acculturation, years in US and racial-ethnic orientation (greater acculturation) were associated with an increased likelihood of having MDD. However, English language preference and preference for other ethnic groups socially did not have significant associations with MDD net of the other measures. Among the stress variables, stressful life events, stress in personal life, and stress in controlling life all had positive associations with MDD, but perceived discrimination in health care had a negative association with MDD and perceived discrimination in other domains had no association with MDD, when controlling for other factors. Finally, among the measures of social integration, social network-close ties and social support were associated with a reduced likelihood of MDD.

Table 4

Associations between depressive disorders, major depression and dysthymia, and substantive factors, adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related correlates (see Table 3, Model 4)

Substantive FactorsMajor
depressionDysthymiaAcculturationEnglish language preference0.9530.726***[0.908,1.000][0.631,0.835]Years in US1.020***1.039***[1.012,1.028][1.023,1.056]Preference for other racial-ethnic
groups socially1.0161.052[0.979,1.055][0.938,1.179]Race-ethnic orientation1.114***0.903[1.079,1.151][0.776,1.050]StressStressful life events1.194***1.036[1.172,1.216][0.992,1.083]Social stress -- personal life1.464***1.499***[1.413,1.516][1.276,1.761]Social stress -- control2.186***1.729***[2.123,2.251][1.599,1.870]Perceived racial-ethnic discrimination
-- health care0.910***1.126***[0.886,0.935][1.053,1.204]Perceived racial-ethnic discrimination
-- other1.0250.995[0.991,1.060][0.938,1.055]Social integrationSocial network -- closeties0.986***0.958**[0.981,0.991][0.932,0.984]Social network -- instrumental ties0.9991.000[0.997,1.002][0.994,1.007]Social support0.944**0.893***[0.910,0.978][0.839,0.950]

Open in a separate window

Odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]

*P < 0.05,

**P < 0.01,

***P < 0.001 (two-tailed test)

In the final model of dysthymia (Table 4), among the measures of acculturation, preference for English language had a negative association while years in US had a positive association with dysthymia. In addition, stress in personal life, stress in control of life, and perceived discrimination in health care were positively associated with the likelihood of having dysthymia, but stressful life events did not have a significant association. Finally, social network-close ties and social support, but not social network-instrumental ties, were associated with a lower likelihood of having dysthymia.

Acquired and Persisting Cases

MDD

The percentage of individuals who developed MDD over a three-year study period was lower for foreign-born than for US natives, and the rates ranged 4–6% among the race-ethnicity groups (Table 5). However, the recovery from MDD between the baseline and the three-year assessment appeared less likely among foreign-born than among US natives. The rates of persisting cases varied from 17.5% among Africans to 23.9% among PR.

Table 5

Rates of depressive disorders, major depression and dysthymia, acquireda and persistingb over a three-year period, by nativity and racial-ethnic origin

Major depressionDysthymiac

---

AcquiredPersistingAcquiredPersisting

---

%SE%SE%SE%SETotal4.90.121.80.70.30.03.90.6Nativity    US-born5.10.121.80.70.30.03.30.7    Foreign-born4.00.122.41.40.40.07.40.7Racial-ethnic origin    African4.30.217.51.3    Asian/Pacific Islander4.50.220.33.5    European5.10.122.40.8    Mexican4.50.221.80.6    Puerto Rican5.60.123.90.9    Other Hispanic/Latino6.00.221.11.7

Open in a separate window

aCondition present in Wave 2 but not in Wave 1

bCondition present in Wave 1 and Wave 2

cNot enough cases to examine changes in dysthymia by racial-ethnic origin or to model persisting cases of dysthymia

After adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related and substantive factors (Table 6, Model 1), PR-PR and Mexicans were more likely while foreign-born Asians were less likely than US-born Europeans to develop MDD over a three-year period. There were no significant differences between foreign-born Africans, Europeans, and “other Hispanics or Latinos” and US-born Europeans in developing MDD over time. However, several significant differences were observed between immigrants and natives within the same race-ethnicity. After adjusting for all factors, US-born Africans and Mexicans, and PR-US had a lower likelihood of acquiring MDD over time than their non-native counterparts (Appendix 2). In contrast, US-born Asians and “other Hispanics or Latinos” had a higher likelihood of developing MDD over time than their foreign-born counterparts.

Table 6

Regression results predicting changes in depression disorders, major depression and dysthymia, at 3-year follow-up by nativity, racial-ethnic origin, and substantive factors, adjusting for sociodemographic and health-related correlates

Major DepressionDysthymiaa

---

Acquiredb
Model 1Persistingc
Model 2AcquiredbNativity by racial-ethnic origin  African US-born0.619***0.569***[0.554,0.691][0.460,0.704]  African foreign-born1.1826.971**[0.919,1.522][2.052,23.677]  Asian US-born1.349***0.982[1.158,1.571][0.530,1.820]  Asian foreign-born0.643***2.434*[0.501,0.824][1.053,5.629]  European US-born (referent)  European foreign-born1.2190.8[0.971,1.531][0.392,1.636]  Mexican US-born0.852**0.379***[0.756,0.960][0.246,0.583]  Mexican foreign-born1.366***6.725***[1.187,1.573][3.653,12.383]  Puerto Rican born in US states0.597***0.779[0.532,0.671][0.530,1.145]  Puerto Rican born in Puerto
Rico4.383***3.954***[3.878,4.953][2.292,6.822]  Other Hispanic/Latino US-born1.525***0.966[1.294,1.798][0.688,1.357]  Other Hispanic/Latino foreign-
born1.0650.559[0.889,1.275][0.253,1.233]

---

Nativity  US-born (referent)
Foreign-born1.892***[1.531,2.339]

---

Substantive factorsAcculturation  English language preference0.938**1.0380.715***[0.901,0.977][0.742,1.450][0.620,0.825]  Years in US1.018***1.0341.039***[1.014,1.022][0.978,1.094][1.023,1.056]  Preference for other racial-ethnic
groups socially0.9811.139*1.067[0.946,1.017][1.015,1.278][0.951,1.197]  Race-ethnic orientation1.120***1.0500.900[1.086,1.156][0.969,1.138][0.769,1.052]Stress  Stressful life events1.217***1.077***1.045[1.192,1.242][1.038,1.117][0.998,1.094]  Social stress -- personal life1.457***1.388***1.466***[1.406,1 .509][1.256,1 .533][1.256,1 .711]  Social stress -- control2.229***1.574***1.702***[2.165,2.295][1.459,1.698][1.585,1.827]  Perceived racial-ethnic
discrimination -- health care0.926***0.819***1.121**[0.898,0.955][0.772,0.870][1.040,1.208]  Perceived racial-ethnic
discrimination -- other1.0091.085*0.983[0.971,1.049][1.006,1.171][0.925,1.045]Social integration  Social network -- close ties0.989***0.971***0.959**[0.984,0.995][0.959,0.983][0.933,0.986]  Social network -- instrumental
ties0.9981.0021.001[0.996,1.001][0.997,1.008][0.994,1.008]  Social support0.943**0.9640.899***[0.907,0.981][0.882,1.054][0.854,0.945]

Open in a separate window

Odds ratios [95% confidence intervals]

aNot enough cases to examine changes in dysthymia by racial-ethnic origin or to model persisting dysthymia

bCondition present in Wave 2 but not in Wave 1

cCondition present in Wave 1 and Wave 2

*P < 0.05

**P < 0.01

***P < 0.001 (two-tailed test)

Among the acculturation factors, English language preference was associated with a lower and years in the US and racial-ethnic orientation with a higher likelihood of acquiring MDD over time (Table 6, Model 1). Among the measures of stress, stress life events, social stress-personal life and social stress-controlling life were associated with an increased likelihood of developing MDD while perceived racial-ethnic discrimination in health care was associated with a reduced likelihood of developing MDD. Finally, social network-close ties and social support were both associated with a reduced likelihood of developing MDD.

In terms of persisting cases of MDD, foreign-born Africans, Asians, Mexicans, and PR-PR had higher likelihoods of continuing the disorder compared with US-born Europeans, after adjusting for other factors (Table 6, Model 2). Other foreign-born groups did not differ from the latter group. However, in a fully adjusted model, US-born Africans and Mexicans and PR-US had lower likelihoods of continuing the disorder than their foreign-born counterparts (Appendix 2). Other foreign-born groups did not differ on this outcome from their racial-ethnic US-born counterparts, when adjusting for other factors. In the full model, preference for other racial-ethnic groups socially and all stress variables were associated with a higher likelihood of persisting MDD (Table 6). On the other hand, social network-close ties was associated with a lower likelihood of persisting MDD. Other substantive variables did not have significant associations with persisting MDD.

Dysthymia

There were few cases of acquired and persisting dysthymia (Table 5). The analysis was limited to examining nativity-based differences in the likelihood of acquiring dysthymia over a three-year period (Table 6). The results showed that foreign-born respondents had a higher likelihood of acquiring dysthymia than US-born respondents, after adjusting for sociodemographic, health-related, and substantive factors. Among the acculturation factors, English language preference was associated with a reduced likelihood and years in US was associated with an increased likelihood of developing dysthymia. Among the measures of stress, stress-personal life, stress-controlling life, and perceived racial-ethnic discrimination-health care were all associated with an increased likelihood of developing dysthymia. Finally, social network -close ties and social support were both associated with a decreased likelihood of developing dysthymia.

DISCUSSION

The unique contribution of this study was the estimation of both prevalence and three-year changes in MDD and dysthymia among US adults based on nativity and racial-ethnic origin, before and after adjustment for measures of acculturation, stress, and social integration, as well as sociodemographic factors. The results of the study confirm past reports of generally lower rates of MDD among immigrants compared to the US-born population [10, 18, 31]. However, prevalence of dysthymia was found to be higher for foreign-born than US-born. This is the first study to report the presence of this disparity even after all adjustments. In addition, the study showed considerable variation in the outcomes between foreign-born and US-born based on racial-ethnic origin and type of condition – prevalent, acquired, or persisting. Among immigrants, PR, in particular, but also Mexicans and Africans, appeared to be at a higher risk of prevalent and acquired MDD than their US-born counterparts. In contrast, Asians and other Hispanics or Latino appeared to be protected against prevalent and persisting MDD. No differences were found based on nativity among individuals of European heritage.

The findings from this study support and extend the past literature. Past research has shown that PRs have the highest lifetime prevalence of depressive disorders among all Latino groups [32]. Furthermore, immigrant Latinos have been reported to have a lower prevalence of depressive disorders than non-immigrant Latinos, but analyses stratified by nativity and adjusted for sociodemographic factors showed further variations [31]. Also, research including a broader range of origin groups has indicated no association between US-born status and risk for mood disorders among individuals of Western European and PR descents [10]. In terms of PR, as previously stated [33], they “are U.S. citizens, which makes their migratory patterns and exposure to U.S. culture different from those of other Latino groups” (p. 365). Exposure to US culture appears to be a mental health risk for PR while other Latino groups are protected by their non-US cultures. Data for immigrant Africans are limited, but this population has been identified as exhibiting high levels of trauma and depression [34, 35]. Overall, the literature indicates diverse findings for US Asian, Black, and Latino immigrants, with some groups being at a higher and some being at a lower risk of depressive, anxiety, and substance abuse disorders [14]. This can be explained, in part, by methodological differences among the studies, for exampling sampling or measures of immigration. However, other factors such as gender or acculturation modes may vary across racial-ethnic groups, contributing to these diverse findings about depressive disorders [14].

To further the literature, this study considered a broad range of explanatory and correlated factors. Past research suggests that social standing of immigrants helps to explain the health status of immigrants [18]. However, social status variables provided limited explanation of the relationships between nativity, race-ethnicity, and the depressive disorders in our study. In comparison, measures of acculturation, stress, and social integration, helped to explain the nativity and racial-ethnic differences in the outcomes, though the associations were mixed (Table 7), as they are in other studies [36]. For example, English language preference appeared to protect immigrants against acquired MDD and prevalent and acquired dysthymia but it had no association with prevalent MDD. It is possible that those immigrants who quickly learn and use English might experience less stress than others and are less likely to develop dysthymia. Consistent with this interpretation is prior research showing that greater proficiency in English lowers the risks for depressive disorders among men of Asian descent [14].

Table 7

Summary of findings for acculturation, stress, and social integration relationships with depressive disorders, major depression and dysthymia

Major depressionDysthymiaa

---

Prevalen
tAcquired
bPersisting
bPrevalen
tAcquired
bAcculturation    English language preferenceNS−NS−−    Years in US++NS++    Preference for other racial-ethnic
groups sociallyNSNS+NSNS    Race-ethnic orientation++NSNSNSStress    Stressful life events+++−NS    Social stress -- personal life+++++    Social stress -- control+++++    Perceived racial-ethnic    discrimination -- health care−−+++    Perceived racial-ethnic    discrimination -- otherNSNS+NSNSSocial network/social support    Social network -- close ties−−+−−    Social network -- instrumental    Ties−−NS−NS    Social supportNSNSNSNS−

Open in a separate window

Symbols indicate if association was positive (+), negative (−), or not signicant (NS), net of other factors (nativity, racial-ethnic origin, and sociodemographic and health-related factors).

aNot enough cases to model the prevalence of persisting dysthymia

bOver a three-year period

Furthermore, in this study, perceived racial-ethnic discrimination related to health care was associated with a lower risk of prevalent and acquired MDD but positively associated with prevalent and acquired dysthymia. For immigrants and racial-ethnic minorities, this may be due to perceived discrimination lowering health service utilization, leading to lower rates of diagnoses among these groups. Discrimination and prejudice are major stressors that have been linked to poor psychological well-being [24, 25, 37, 38]. Other research suggests that while discrimination may heighten psychological distress, it has less of an impact on depression than recent and chronic stressors such as lifetime adversity or traumatic events [23].

The findings regarding social ties also support and extend prior literature. Having a perception of high social support has beneficial effects on mental health by reducing psychological distress and buffering the impact of stressful events [39, 40] and can reduce the nativity effect on psychological distress and disorder [41]. However, immigrants may have less support than US-born individuals. Social support may have moderating or mediating effects on the stress experienced by ethnic and immigrant groups. Ethnic groups tend to rely on social support from the extended family versus friends, neighbors, or co-workers. For example, among Southeast Asian refugees in Canada, social support modified the effects of pre-migration trauma experiences on psychological well-being [42]. Some research finds that avoiding acculturation and maintaining ties with one’s own racial-ethnic group protects against psychological distress [43, 44], though others find that crossing racial-ethnic lines in social relations promotes psychological well-being, especially among immigrants [45].

This study had several limitations. For example, this study did not address other factors shaping the patterns of depressive disorders among US immigrants, such as age at immigration or historical cohort [10, 41, 46]. Social stress indicators were also limited in this study. In particular, this study focused on post-immigration social stress and could not address distress due to stressful experiences pre-immigration and during the migration process. Past trauma and other displacement-related factors are known to be associated with poor mental health outcomes [47]. In addition, there is the potential for misdiagnosis of mental disorders among minorities. Diagnosis of individuals from minority groups can be challenging because the manifestations of depressive disorders, such as idioms of distress and somatization, vary with race, ethnicity, and culture, and words such as “depression” may be absent in some languages [48, 49]. Immigrants may be less likely than US-natives to perceive distress as depression or may report milder symptoms, which could, in part, contribute to their higher rates of dysthymia versus MDD. Furthermore, the survey method and self-reports used in the study can differ from clinical assessments and have its limitations. Finally, the definition of race-ethnicity was also limited in this study. Broad racial-ethnic categories tend to mask cultural heterogeneity of individuals from different countries and cultures. It is also unclear to what extent members of the same ethnic group are similar and different in terms of acculturation modes [18].

These limitations notwithstanding, this study provides further insights into social epidemiology of MDD and dysthymia in US foreign-born and native populations – with attention to racial-ethnic ancestry. The picture is quite complex and no one set of findings can provide a full explanation. More research is needed to disentangle the pathways linking nativity, race-ethnicity, and social factors to different depression outcomes and their trajectories over time. These pathways could be examined using path analytic techniques, such as structural equation modeling. Also, future studies should include age at immigration, historical cohort information, and a more complete set of stressors in the examination of depressive disorders among immigrants.

APPENDIX 1

Descriptive statistics: NESARC Wave 2

---

---

Unweigh
ted nWeighted %Mean

---

OverallOve
rallUS-
bornForeign-
bornChi-
squa
re
p-
valu
eOve
rallUS-
bornForeign-
bornt-test p-
valueTotal33373Nativity    US-born2808385.9    Foreign-born529014.2Racial-ethnic origin    African664011.812.38.4<.0001    Asian/Pacific Islander11315.01.725.0    European1917470.979.319.7    Mexican35566.83.725.7    Puerto Rican7861.3.93.9    Other Hispanic/Latino20864.22.117.2Sociodemographic variables    Female1932452.052.250.7<.0001    Age48.248.745.2<.0001    Married1713060.759.965.6<.0001    Cohabiting10303.23.04.1    Previously married879018.719.514.1    Never married/not cohabiting642317.417.616.3    Number of children.6.6.8<.0001    Less than high school521713.611.129.2<.0001    High school degree906427.428.421.0    Attended college1039231.533.022.0    College graduate870027.527.527.8    Work full-time1724153.252.657.0<.0001    Work part-time352610.811.010.0    Not working1260635.936.432.9    Northeast584817.718.115.5<.0001    Midwest634118.617.922.5    South1267038.338.636.5    West851425.425.425.6    MSA1107532.632.632.80.0183    MSA but not in central city1688851.051.150.2    Not in a MSA541016.416.317.0    Income618846294655438<.0001Health-related variables    Health insurance2910487.789.875.4<.0001    Current tobacco use748123.525.312.5<.0001    Tobacco use -- current3331.01.0.7    Tobacco use -- prior to W2772823.825.016.7    Lifetime tobacco use -- never used1783151.748.770.1    Religious activity−.025−.028−.007.4353Substantive factorsAcculturation    English language preference.074.351−1.622<.0001    Years in US44.9848.6822.56<.0001    Preference for other raciasocially-ethnic groups−.099−.129.080<.0001    Race-ethnic orientation.069.134−.330<.0001Stress    Stressful life events1.5241.5681.255<.0001    Social stress -- personal life−.037−.079.223<.0001    Social stress -- control−.030−.009−.160<.0001    Perceived racial-ethnic discrimination health care−.051−.078.116<.0001    Perceived racial-ethnic discrimination other−.063−.088.089<.0001Social integration    Social network--number of close ties10.40410.4999.822.0003    Social network--number of instrumental ties8.5758.9066.545<.0001    Social support.037.053−.058.0002

Open in a separate window

APPENDIX 2

Odds ratios for selected pairwise comparisons of US-born and foreign-born (FB) respondents of different racial-ethnic origins

Major depressionaChange in major
depressionb

---

Model 1Model 2Model 3Model 4Model 1cModel 2dAfrican US vs. FB1.1670.9150.8760.424***0.524***0.082***Asian US vs. FB3.223***2.29***2.165***1.622***2.104***0.403European US vs. FB0.765***0.764***0.772**1.1221.2190.8Mexican US vs. FB1.596***1.0561.0680.46***0.624***0.056***PR-US vs. PR-PR0.397***0.272***0.258***0.15***0.136***0.197***Other Hispanic/Latino US vs. FB2.642***2.171***2.064***1.363**1.433**1.729

Open in a separate window

PR-US = US-born Puerto Rican; PR-PR = Puerto Rico-born

aSee Table 3

bSee Table 6

cAcquired major depression

dPersisting major depression

REFERENCES

1. Gonzalez HM, Tarraf W, Whitfield KE, Vega WA. The epidemiology of major depression and ethnicity in the United States. J Psychiatr Res. 2010;44(15):1043–1051. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

2. Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Merikangas KR, Walters EE. Lifetime prevalence and age-of-onset distributions of DSM-IV disorders in the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005;62(6):593–602. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

3. National Institute of Mental Health. Disability Statistics. [Accessed April 4, 2014]; Available from: http://www.nimh.nih.gov/statistics/index.shtml.

4. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. 4th Text Revision ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association; 2000. [Google Scholar]

5. Smedley BD, Stith AY, Nelson AR, editors. Unequal Treatment: Confronting Racial and Ethnic Disparities in Health Care. Washington, DC: The National Academy Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]

6. Alegria M, Chatteriji P, Wells K, Cao Z, Chen CN, et al. Disparity in depression treatment among racial and ethnic minority populations in the United States. Psychiatr Serv. 2008;59(11):1264–1272. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

7. Grant BF, Stinson FS, Hasin DS, Dawson DA, Chou SP, et al. Immigration and lifetime prevalence of DSM-IV psychiatric disorders among Mexican Americans and non-Hispanic whites in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. Archives of General Psychiatry. 2004;61(12):1226–1233. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

8. Burnam MA, Hough RL, Karno M, Escobar JI, Telles CA. Acculturation and lifetime prevalence of psychiatric disorders among Mexican Americans in Los Angeles. J Health Soc Behav. 1987;28(1):89–102. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

9. Breslau J, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Borges G, Kendler KS, Su M, Kessler RC. Risk for psychiatric disorder among immigrants and their US-born descendants: evidence from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2007;195(3):189–195. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

10. Breslau J, Borges G, Hagar Y, Tancredi D, Gilman S. Immigration to the USA and risk for mood and anxiety disorders: variation by origin and age at immigration. Psychol Med. 2009;39(7):1117–1127. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

11. Alegria M, Mulvaney-Day N, Torres M, Polo A, Cao Z, Canino G. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders across Latino subgroups in the United States. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(1):68–75. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

12. Williams DR, Haile R, Gonzalez HM, Neighbors H, Baser R, Jackson JS. The mental health of Black Caribbean immigrants: results from the National Survey of American Life. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(1):52–59. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

13. Breslau J, Chang DF. Psychiatric disorders among foreign-born and US-born Asian-Americans in a US national survey. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2006;41(12):943–950. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

14. Takeuchi DT, Alegria M, Jackson JS, Williams DR. Immigration and mental health: diverse findings in Asian, black, and Latino populations. Am J Public Health. 2007;97(1):11–12. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

15. Ortega AN, Rosenheck R, Alegria M, Desai RA. Acculturation and the lifetime risk of psychiatric and substance use disorders among Hispanics. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2000;188(11):728–735. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

16. Alegria M, Canino G, Stinson FS, Grant BF. Nativity and DSM-IV psychiatric disorders among Puerto Ricans, Cuban Americans, and non-Latino Whites in the United States: results from the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(1):56–65. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

17. Escobar JI, Nervi CH, Gara MA. Immigration and mental health: Mexican Americans in the United States. Harvard Rev Psychiat. 2000;8(2):64–72. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

18. Huang B, Dawson DA, Stinson FS, Hasin DS, Ruan WJ, Saha TD, Smith SM, Goldstein RB, Grant BF. Prevalence, correlates, and comorbidity of nonmedical prescription drug use and drug use disorders in the United States: Results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions. J Clin Psychiatry. 2006;67(7):1062–1073. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

19. Berry JW. Acculturation and adaptation in a new society. International Migration. 1992;30(1):69–85. [Google Scholar]

20. Berry JW. A psychology of immigration. J Soc Issues. 2001;57(3):615–631. [Google Scholar]

21. Wheaton B, Young M, Montazer S, Sttuart-Lahman K. Social stress in the twenty-first century. In: Anshensel CS, Phelan JC, Bierman A, editors. Handbook of the Sociology of Mental Health. New York: Springer; 2013. pp. 299–323. [Google Scholar]

22. Szaflarski M, Cubbins LA, Ying J. Epidemiology of alcohol abuse among US immigrant populations. J Immigr Minor Health. 2011;13(4):647–658. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

23. Taylor J, Turner R. Perceived discrimination, social stress, and depression in the transition to adulthood: racial contrasts. Social Psychol Q. 2002;65(3):213–225. [Google Scholar]

24. Williams DR, Neighbors HW, Jackson JS. Racial/ethnic discrimination and health: findings from community studies. Am J Public Health. 2003;93(2):200–228. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

25. Gee GC, Ryan A, Laflamme DJ, Holt J. Self-reported discrimination and mental health status among African descendants, Mexican Americans, and other Latinos in the New Hampshire REACH 2010 Initiative: the added dimension of immigration. Am J Public Health. 2006;96(10):1821–1828. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

26. Comstock RD, Castillo EM, Lindsay SP. Four-year review of the use of race and ethnicity in epidemiologic and public health research. Am J Epidemiol. 2004;159(6):611–619. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

27. Grant BF, Kaplan K, Shepard J, Moore T. Source and accuracy statement for Wave 1 of the 2001–2002 National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions.

How does dysthymia differ from major depression?

Is dysthymia more severe than MDD?

What is the difference between major depressive disorder and depressive disorder?

Can you have dysthymia and major depressive disorder?