Quality of Life Research

, Volume 25, Issue 5, pp 1159–1168 | Cite as

Gender differences in the effect of social support on health-related quality of life: results of a population-based prospective cohort study in old age in Germany

  • André Hajek
  • Christian Brettschneider
  • Carolin Lange
  • Tina Posselt
  • Birgitt Wiese
  • Susanne Steinmann
  • Siegfried Weyerer
  • Jochen Werle
  • Michael Pentzek
  • Angela Fuchs
  • Janine Stein
  • Tobias Luck
  • Horst Bickel
  • Edelgard Mösch
  • Steffen Wolfsgruber
  • Kathrin Heser
  • Wolfgang Maier
  • Martin Scherer
  • Steffi G. Riedel-Heller
  • Hans-Helmut König
Article

Abstract

Purpose

The causality between social predictors and HRQoL in old age remains almost unclear as only a few studies have examined the influence of social support on HRQoL in a longitudinal setting. Moreover, available studies investigating gender differences in the effect of social support on HRQoL in old age have been solely cross-sectional. Consequently, the aim of this study was to examine whether social support affects health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in old age and whether this effect is moderated by gender.

Methods

In a population-based cohort (N = 2443) of people aged 75 years and older in Germany, the development of HRQoL was prospectively observed over a 3-year period. Quality of life was quantified by using the visual analogue scale of the EQ-5D instrument. Social support was assessed by using the 14-item form of the questionnaire for social support (F-SozU K-14). In order to control for unobserved heterogeneity, fixed-effects regression analysis was used.

Results

In the total sample (β = 0.55, p < 0.05) and in men (β = 1.39, p < 0.001), a strong positive impact of social support on HRQoL was found. There was no significant effect of social support on HRQoL in women. The effect of social support on HRQoL was significantly moderated by gender (p < 0.05).

Conclusions

Findings accentuate the fundamental role of social support in HRQoL in old age. Particularly in men, it is therefore crucial to strengthen the social ties in old age.

Keywords

Social support Health-related quality of life Interaction Older people Gender differences Longitudinal 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors thank two anonymous reviewers who provided insightful comments to strengthen the manuscript.

Members of the AgeCoDe Study Group: Principal Investigators*: Wolfgang Maier, Martin Scherer, Heinz-Harald Abholz, Cadja Bachmann, Horst Bickel, Wolfgang Blank, Hendrik van den Bussche, Sandra Eifflaender-Gorfer, Marion Eisele, Annette Ernst, Angela Fuchs, Kathrin Heser, Frank Jessen, Hanna Kaduszkiewicz, Teresa Kaufeler, Mirjam Köhler, Hans-Helmut König, Alexander Koppara, Carolin Lange, Hanna Leicht, Tobias Luck, Melanie Luppa, Manfred Mayer, Edelgard Mösch, Julia Olbrich, Michael Pentzek, Jana Prokein, Anna Schumacher, Steffi Riedel-Heller, Janine Stein, Susanne Steinmann, Franziska Tebarth, Michael Wagner, Klaus Weckbecker, Dagmar Weeg, Jochen Werle, Siegfried Weyerer, Birgitt Wiese, Steffen Wolfsgruber, Thomas Zimmermann. *Hendrik van den Bussche (2002–2011). We want to thank both all participating patients and their general practitioners for their good collaboration.

Authors’ contributions

A.H. made substantial contributions to conception and design of the study, the analysis and interpretation of data and drafted the manuscript. H.H.K. and S.R.H. made substantial contributions to the analysis and interpretation of data and drafting of the manuscript. C.B., C.L., T.P., S.S., S.We., J.S., T.L., H.B., S.Wo., K.H., W.M. and M.S. made substantial contributions to conception and design, and critically revised the manuscript. B.W. made substantial contributions to conception and design, contributed to the analyses and data interpretation and critically revised the manuscript. J.W., A.F., M.P. and E.M. carried out patient assessments, contributed to the interpretation of data and critically revised the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

This publication is part of the German Research Network on Dementia (KND), the German Research Network on Degenerative Dementia (KNDD), and the Study on Needs, Health Service Use, Costs and Health-related Quality of Life in a large Sample of Oldest-old Primary Care Patients (85+) (AgeQualiDe) and was funded by the German Federal Ministry of Education and Research (Grants KND 01GI0102, 01GI0420, 01GI0422, 01GI0423, 01GI0429, 01GI0431, 01GI0433, and 01GI0434; Grants KNDD 01GI0710, 01GI0711, 01GI0712, 01GI0713, 01GI0714, 01GI0715, 01GI0716, and 01ET1006B; and Grants AgeQualiDe 01GY1322A, 01GY1322B, 01GY1322C, 01GY1322D, 01GY1322E, 01GY1322F, 01GY1322G).

Compliance with ethical standards

Ethical approval

The ethics committees of the participating centers approved the study (reference numbers: 050/02 (University of Bonn), 2079 (Faculty of Medicine, University of Düsseldorf), 2817/2007 (Hamburg Medical Association), 309/2007 (Faculty of Medicine, University of Leipzig), 2007-253E-MA (Medical Ethics Commission II, University of Heidelberg at the University Medical Center of Mannheim), 713/02 (Faculty of Medicine, Technical University of Munich)). The study was conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11136_2015_1166_MOESM1_ESM.docx (29 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 28 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gurung, R. A. R., Taylor, S. E., & Seeman, T. E. (2003). Accounting for changes in social support among married older adults: Insights from the MacArthur Studies of Successful Aging. Psychology and Aging, 18(3), 487–496.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liu, L. (2011). Social connections, diabetes mellitus, and risk of mortality among white and African-American adults aged 70 and older: An eight-year follow-up study. Annals of Epidemiology, 21(1), 26–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Shye, D., Mullooly, J. P., Freeborn, D. K., & Pope, C. R. (1995). Gender differences in the relationship between social network support and mortality: A longitudinal study of an elderly cohort. Social Science and Medicine, 41(7), 935–947.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Seeman, T. E. (1996). Social ties and health: The benefits of social integration. Annals of Epidemiology, 6(5), 442–451.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Krause, N., Liang, J., & Gu, S. (1998). Financial strain, received support, anticipated support, and depressive symptoms in the People’s Republic of China. Psychology and Aging, 13(1), 58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zunzunegui, M.-V., Alvarado, B. E., Del Ser, T., & Otero, A. (2003). Social networks, social integration, and social engagement determine cognitive decline in community-dwelling Spanish older adults. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 58(2), S93–S100.CrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bassuk, S. S., Glass, T. A., & Berkman, L. F. (1999). Social disengagement and incident cognitive decline in community-dwelling elderly persons. Annals of Internal Medicine, 131(3), 165–173.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Brettschneider, C., Leicht, H., Bickel, H., Dahlhaus, A., Fuchs, A., Gensichen, J., et al. (2013). Relative impact of multimorbid chronic conditions on health-related quality of life—Results from the multicare cohort study. PLoS ONE, 8(6), e66742.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kutner, N. G. (1987). Social ties, social support, and perceived health status among chronically disabled people. Social Science and Medicine, 25(1), 29–34.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Zunzunegui, M.-V., Koné, A., Johri, M., Béland, F., Wolfson, C., & Bergman, H. (2004). Social networks and self-rated health in two French-speaking Canadian community dwelling populations over 65. Social Science and Medicine, 58(10), 2069–2081.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tajvar, M., Fletcher, A., Grundy, E., & Arab, M. (2013). Social support and health of older people in Middle Eastern countries: a systematic review. Australasian Journal on Ageing, 32(2), 71–78. doi:10.1111/j.1741-6612.2012.00639.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Craigs, C. L., Twiddy, M., Parker, S. G., & West, R. M. (2014). Understanding causal associations between self-rated health and personal relationships in older adults: A review of evidence from longitudinal studies. Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics, 59(2), 211–226. doi:10.1016/j.archger.2014.06.009.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hewitt, B., Turrell, G., & Giskes, K. (2012). Marital loss, mental health and the role of perceived social support: Findings from six waves of an Australian population based panel study. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 66(4), 308–314. doi:10.1136/jech.2009.104893.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tomberg, T., Toomela, A., Ennok, M., & Tikk, A. (2007). Changes in coping strategies, social support, optimism and health-related quality of life following traumatic brain injury: A longitudinal study. Brain Injury, 21(5), 479–488. doi:10.1080/02699050701311737.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Salonen, P., Tarkka, M.-T., Kellokumpu-Lehtinen, P.-L., Koivisto, A.-M., Aalto, P., & Kaunonen, M. (2013). Effect of social support on changes in quality of life in early breast cancer patients: A longitudinal study. Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences, 27(2), 396–405. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6712.2012.01050.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Verbrugge, L. M. (1989). The twain meet: empirical explanations of sex differences in health and mortality. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 30(3), 282–304.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Prus, S. G., & Gee, E. (2003). Gender differences in the influence of economic, lifestyle, and psychosocial factors on later-life health. Canadian Journal of Public Health, 94(4), 306–309.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Okamoto, K., & Tanaka, Y. (2004). Gender differences in the relationship between social support and subjective health among elderly persons in Japan. Preventive Medicine, 38(3), 318–322. doi:10.1016/j.ypmed.2003.10.010.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Chemaitelly, H., Kanaan, C., Beydoun, H., Chaaya, M., Kanaan, M., & Sibai, A. M. (2013). The role of gender in the association of social capital, social support, and economic security with self-rated health among older adults in deprived communities in Beirut. Quality of Life Research, 22(6), 1371–1379. doi:10.1007/s11136-012-0273-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Gallicchio, L., Hoffman, S. C., & Helzlsouer, K. J. (2007). The relationship between gender, social support, and health-related quality of life in a community-based study in Washington County. Maryland. Quality of Life Research, 16(5), 777–786.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cheng, S.-T., & Chan, A. (2006). Social support and self-rated health revisited: Is there a gender difference in later life? Social Science and Medicine, 63(1), 118–122.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    García, E. L., Banegas, J. R., Pérez-Regadera, A. G., Cabrera, R. H., & Rodríguez-Artalejo, F. (2005). Social network and health-related quality of life in older adults: A population-based study in Spain. Quality of Life Research, 14(2), 511–520.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    McDonough, P., & Walters, V. (2001). Gender and health: Reassessing patterns and explanations. Social Science and Medicine, 52(4), 547–559. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(00)00159-3.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Denton, M., Prus, S., & Walters, V. (2004). Gender differences in health: A Canadian study of the psychosocial, structural and behavioural determinants of health. Social Science and Medicine, 58(12), 2585–2600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98(2), 310.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Nakhaie, R., & Arnold, R. (2010). A four year (1996–2000) analysis of social capital and health status of Canadians: The difference that love makes. Social Science and Medicine, 71(5), 1037–1044.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Neff, L. A., & Karney, B. R. (2005). Gender differences in social support: A question of skill or responsiveness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88(1), 79.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Luck, T., Riedel-Heller, S. G., Luppa, M., Wiese, B., Wollny, A., Wagner, M., et al. (2010). Risk factors for incident mild cognitive impairment—Results from the German Study on Ageing, Cognition and Dementia in Primary Care Patients (AgeCoDe). Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 121(4), 260–272. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0447.2009.01481.x.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rabin, R., & Charro, F. (2001). EQ-5D: A measure of health status from the EuroQol Group. Annals of Medicine, 33(5), 337–343.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Holland, R., Smith, R. D., Harvey, I., Swift, L., & Lenaghan, E. (2004). Assessing quality of life in the elderly: A direct comparison of the EQ-5D and AQoL. Health Economics, 13(8), 793–805.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bakas, T., McLennon, S. M., Carpenter, J. S., Buelow, J. M., Otte, J. L., Hanna, K. M., et al. (2012). Systematic review of health-related quality of life models. Health Qual Life Outcomes, 10(1), 134.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Wilson, I. B., & Cleary, P. D. (1995). Linking clinical variables with health-related quality of life: A conceptual model of patient outcomes. JAMA, 273(1), 59–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Fydrich, T., Sommer, G., Tydecks, S., & Brähler, E. (2009). Fragebogen zur sozialen Unterstützung (F-SozU): Normierung der Kurzform (K-14)Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU): Standardization of short form (K-14). Zeitschrift für Medizinische Psychologie, 18(1), 43–48.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kliem, S., Mößle, T., Rehbein, F., Hellmann, D. F., Zenger, M., & Brähler, E. (2015). A brief form of the Perceived Social Support Questionnaire (F-SozU) was developed, validated, and standardized. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(5), 551–562.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Lawton, M. P., & Brody, E. M. (1969). Assessment of older people: Self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist, 9(3 Part 1), 179–186. doi:10.1093/geront/9.3_Part_1.179.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Brauns, H., & Steinmann, S. (1999). Educational Reform in France, West-Germany and the United Kingdom. Updating the CASMIN Educational Classification. ZUMA-Nachrichten, 44, 7–44.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Folstein, M. F., Folstein, S. E., & McHugh, P. R. (1975). “Mini-mental state”: a practical method for grading the cognitive state of patients for the clinician. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 12(3), 189–198.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Reisberg, B., Ferris, S. H., de Leon, Mony J., & Crook, T. (1982). The Global Deterioration Scale for assessment of primary degenerative dementia. American Journal of Psychiatry, 139(9), 1136–1139.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A., & Frijters, P. (2004). How important is methodology for the estimates of the determinants of happiness?*. The Economic Journal, 114(497), 641–659. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0297.2004.00235.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Morgan, S. L., & Winship, C. (2014). Counterfactuals and causal inference. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Winship, C., & Morgan, S. L. (1999). The estimation of causal effects from observational data. Annual Review of Sociology, 25, 659–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J.-S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wooldridge, J. M. (2010). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (2008). Heteroskedasticity-robust standard errors for fixed effects panel data regression. Econometrica, 76(1), 155–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2009). Microeconometrics using stata. Texas: Stata Press.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cameron, A. C., & Trivedi, P. K. (2005). Microeconometrics: Methods and applications. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mouw, T. (2006). Estimating the causal effect of social capital: A review of recent research. Annual Review of Sociology, 32, 79–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Vaisey, S., & Miles, A. (2014). What you can—and can’t—do with three-wave panel data. Sociological Methods & Research,. doi:10.1177/0049124114547769.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Gangl, M. (2010). Causal inference in sociological research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36, 21–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kempen, Gertrudis I. J. M., Ballemans, J., Ranchor, A. V., van Rens, Ger H. M. B., Zijlstra, G., & Rixt, A. (2012). The impact of low vision on activities of daily living, symptoms of depression, feelings of anxiety and social support in community-living older adults seeking vision rehabilitation services. Quality of Life Research, 21(8), 1405–1411. doi:10.1007/s11136-011-0061-y.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Brüderl, J., & Ludwig, V. (2015). Fixed-effects panel regression. In C. Wolf (Ed.), The Sage handbook of regression analysis and causal inference (pp. 327–357). Los Angeles: SAGE.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Baetschmann, G., Staub, K. E., & Winkelmann, R. (2014). Consistent estimation of the fixed effects ordered logit model. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (Statistics in Society),. doi:10.1111/rssa.12090.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Praag, Van, Bernard, M. S., & Ferrer-i-Carbonell, A. (2008). Happiness quantified: A satisfaction calculus approach. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Riedl, M., & Geishecker, I. (2014). Keep it simple: estimation strategies for ordered response models with fixed effects. Journal of Applied Statistics, 41(11), 2358–2374. doi:10.1080/02664763.2014.909969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Strine, T. W., Chapman, D. P., Balluz, L., & Mokdad, A. H. (2008). Health-related quality of life and health behaviors by social and emotional support. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 43(2), 151–159.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Strine, T. W., Kroenke, K., Dhingra, S., Balluz, L. S., Gonzalez, O., Berry, J. T., et al. (2009). The associations between depression, health-related quality of life, social support, life satisfaction, and disability in community-dwelling US adults. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 197(1), 61–64.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    White, A. M., Philogene, G. S., Fine, L., & Sinha, S. (2009). Social support and self-reported health status of older adults in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 99(10), 1872.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Melchior, M., Berkman, L. F., Niedhammer, I., Chea, M., & Goldberg, M. (2003). Social relations and self-reported health: A prospective analysis of the French Gazel cohort. Social Science and Medicine, 56(8), 1817–1830.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Ren, X. S., Skinner, K., Lee, A., & Kazis, L. (1999). Social support, social selection and self-assessed health status: Results from the veterans health study in the United States. Social Science and Medicine, 48(12), 1721–1734. doi:10.1016/S0277-9536(99)00069-6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Clarke, P. J., Marshall, V. W., Ryff, C. D., & Rosenthal, C. J. (2000). Well-Being in Canadian Seniors: Findings from the Canadian Study of Health and Aging. Canadian Journal on Aging, 19(2), 139–159. doi:10.1017/S0714980800013982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Luhmann, M., Hofmann, W., Eid, M., & Lucas, R. E. (2012). Subjective well-being and adaptation to life events: A meta-analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(3), 592–615.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Clark, A. E., & Georgellis, Y. (2013). Back to baseline in Britain: Adaptation in the British household panel survey. Economica, 80(319), 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Rudolf, R., & Kang, S.-J. (2014). Lags and leads in life satisfaction in Korea: When gender matters. Feminist Economics, 21(1), 136–163. doi:10.1080/13545701.2014.967708.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Partridge, L., & Barton, N. H. (1993). Optimality, mutation and the evolution of ageing. Nature, 362(6418), 305–311. doi:10.1038/362305a0.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Smith, J., & Baltes, M. M. (1998). The role of gender in very old age: Profiles of functioning and everyday life patterns. Psychology and Aging, 13(4), 676.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Wachter, K. W., Finch, C. E., & National Research Council Committee on Population. (1997). Between Zeus and the salmon: The biodemography of longevity. Washington: National Academies Press (US).Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Cornman, J. C., Goldman, N., Glei, D. A., Weinstein, M., & Chang, M.-C. (2003). Social ties and perceived support: Two dimensions of social relationships and health among the elderly in Taiwan. Journal of Aging and Health, 15(4), 616–644. doi:10.1177/0898264303256215.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Ferlander, S. (2007). The importance of different forms of social capital for health. Acta Sociologica, 50(2), 115–128. doi:10.2307/20459987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Holden, L., Lee, C., Hockey, R., Ware, R. S., & Dobson, A. J. (2015). Longitudinal analysis of relationships between social support and general health in an Australian population cohort of young women. Quality of Life Research, 24(2), 485–492. doi:10.1007/s11136-014-0774-9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Gerber, Y., Benyamini, Y., Goldbourt, U., Drory, Y., & Israel Study Group on First Acute Myocardial Infarction. (2009). Prognostic importance and long-term determinants of self-rated health after initial acute myocardial infarction. Medical Care, 47(3), 342–349.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • André Hajek
    • 1
  • Christian Brettschneider
    • 1
  • Carolin Lange
    • 2
  • Tina Posselt
    • 2
  • Birgitt Wiese
    • 3
  • Susanne Steinmann
    • 3
  • Siegfried Weyerer
    • 4
  • Jochen Werle
    • 4
  • Michael Pentzek
    • 5
  • Angela Fuchs
    • 5
  • Janine Stein
    • 6
  • Tobias Luck
    • 6
  • Horst Bickel
    • 7
  • Edelgard Mösch
    • 7
  • Steffen Wolfsgruber
    • 8
  • Kathrin Heser
    • 8
  • Wolfgang Maier
    • 8
    • 9
  • Martin Scherer
    • 2
  • Steffi G. Riedel-Heller
    • 6
  • Hans-Helmut König
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Health Economics and Health Services Research, Hamburg Center for Health EconomicsUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  2. 2.Department of Primary Medical Care, Center for Psychosocial MedicineUniversity Medical Center Hamburg-EppendorfHamburgGermany
  3. 3.WG Medical Statistics and IT-Infrastructure, Institute of General PracticeHannover Medical SchoolHannoverGermany
  4. 4.Central Institute of Mental Health, Medical Faculty MannheimHeidelberg UniversityMannheimGermany
  5. 5.Institute of General Practice, Medical FacultyHeinrich-Heine-University DüsseldorfDüsseldorfGermany
  6. 6.Institute of Social Medicine, Occupational Health and Public HealthUniversity of LeipzigLeipzigGermany
  7. 7.Department of PsychiatryTechnical University of MunichMunichGermany
  8. 8.Department of PsychiatryUniversity of BonnBonnGermany
  9. 9.German Center for Neurodegenerative Diseases (DZNE)BonnGermany

Personalised recommendations