Relationship quality and levels of depression and anxiety in a large population-based survey
- 1.2k Downloads
There is substantial literature suggesting that the mental health benefits of marriage (compared to being single) are greater for those in ‘good-quality’ relationships in comparison to those in ‘poor-quality’ relationships. However, little of this research utilises large population-based surveys. Large surveys in psychiatric epidemiology have focused almost exclusively on the association between marital status and mental health. The current study explores some of the reasons for this gap in the literature, and adopts a large, representative community-based sample to investigate whether associations between relationship status and levels of depression and anxiety are moderated by relationship quality.
Participants were from Wave 3 of the PATH Survey, a longitudinal community survey assessing the health and well-being of residents of the Canberra region, Australia (n = 3,820). Relationship quality was measured using the 7 item Dyadic Adjustment Scale (DAS-7), and levels of depression and anxiety were measured using the Goldberg Scales.
Both cross-sectional and prospective analyses showed that associations between relationship status and mental health were moderated by relationship quality for both men and women, such that only good-quality relationships bestowed mental health benefits over remaining single. For women, being in a poor-quality relationship was associated with greater levels of anxiety than being single.
Epidemiological studies need to measure relationship quality to qualify the effect of relationship status on mental health.
KeywordsAnxiety Depression Relationship quality Population survey
We would like to thank Professor Scott Henderson for providing valuable comments and feedback. We also thank the chief investigators and administrators of the PATH study (Kaarin Anstey, Helen Christensen, Simon Easteal, Anthony Jorm, Bryan Rodgers, Perminder Sachdev, Trish Jacomb, Karen Maxwell) and the PATH interviewers and participants. Funding for the PATH study was provided by Program Grant No. 179805 and No. 418039 from the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) of Australia. Author LSL was supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship No. 1035803. Author SO was supported by an NHMRC Early Career Fellowship No. 1035690. Author PB was supported by an NHMRC Career Development Award No. 525410.
- 12.Kessler RC, Berglund P, Demler O, Jin R, Koretz D, Merikangas KR, Rush AJ, Walters EE, Wang PS (2003) The epidemiology of major depressive disorder: results from the National Comorbidity Survey Replication (NCS-R). J Am Med Assoc 289(23):3095–3105. doi: 10.1001/jama.289.23.3095 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Holt-Lunstad J, Birmingham W, Jones BQ (2008) Is there something unique about marriage? The relative impact of marital status, relationship quality, and network social support on ambulatory blood pressure and mental health. Ann Behav Med 35(2):239–244. doi: 10.1007/s12160-008-9018-y PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.Hunsley J, Best M, Lefebvre M, Vito D (2001) The seven-item short form of the Dyadic Adjustment Scale: further evidence for construct validity. Am J Fam Ther 29(4):325–335Google Scholar
- 24.Anstey KJ, Christensen H, Butterworth P, Easteal S, Mackinnon A, Jacomb T, Maxwell K, Rodgers B, Windsor T, Cherbuin N, Jorm AF (2011) Cohort Profile: The PATH through life project. Int J Epidemiol doi: 10.1093/ije/dyr025
- 27.Australian Bureau of Statistics (2008) National survey of mental health and wellbeing: summary of results, 2007. Cat. No. 4326.0. Australian Bureau of Statistics, CanberraGoogle Scholar
- 29.Eysenck H, Eysenck S (1964) Manual of the Eysenck Personality Inventory. University of London Press, LondonGoogle Scholar