IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v17y2020i24p9376-d462254.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Depression among Farming Populations Worldwide

Author

Listed:
  • Briana N. M. Hagen

    (Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

  • Charlotte B. Winder

    (Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

  • Jared Wootten

    (Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

  • Carrie K. McMullen

    (Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

  • Andria Jones-Bitton

    (Department of Population Medicine, University of Guelph, Guelph, ON N1G 2W1, Canada)

Abstract

A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted to determine the overall prevalence of depression among farming populations globally, and explore any heterogeneity present. Eligible studies were primary research articles published in English, which involved the collection of data for the purpose of determining the prevalence of depression among a farming population. Four relevant databases were searched in January 2019. Potential for bias was assessed using a modified Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS) tool. From 7662 records, 72 articles were deemed relevant and had data extracted. Of these, 45 utilized the Center for Epidemiologic Studies—Depression Revised scale (CES-D/DR) to quantify depression, 42 of which were conducted in the United States (U.S.). As a result, meta-analyses were restricted to this geographic location. Substantial heterogeneity was seen in the initial whole-group analysis ( I 2 = 97%), and while sub-group exploration suggested a significantly higher prevalence of depression among migrant farm workers (26%, 95% CI = 21–31%) than in studies examining a non-migrant farming population (12%, 95% CI = 8–17%), substantial heterogeneity remained ( I 2 = 96%), indicating that the majority of between study variation was due to factors other than sampling error. Additionally, the majority of studies (81%) in migrant farm worker populations were published since 2010, while only 21% of studies in non-migrant farming populations were published in this timeframe. It is possible with recent efforts to de-stigmatize mental illness, participants in more recent studies may be more likely to self-report depressive symptoms. Hence, while it appears that migrant farmworker populations may have an elevated prevalence of depression, it is also apparent that little research in the U.S. has been done to evaluate depression among non-migrant farming populations in recent years. Perhaps a reporting bias may account for some of the difference between the two populations. A research gap also appears to exist in estimating the prevalence of depression among farming populations outside of the US. Assessment for bias at the study level revealed challenges in reporting of key study design elements, as well as potential for selection bias in the majority of studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Briana N. M. Hagen & Charlotte B. Winder & Jared Wootten & Carrie K. McMullen & Andria Jones-Bitton, 2020. "A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Depression among Farming Populations Worldwide," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(24), pages 1-15, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9376-:d:462254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9376/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/17/24/9376/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Alessandro Liberati & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Douglas G Altman & The PRISMA Group, 2009. "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(7), pages 1-6, July.
    2. Viechtbauer, Wolfgang, 2010. "Conducting Meta-Analyses in R with the metafor Package," Journal of Statistical Software, Foundation for Open Access Statistics, vol. 36(i03).
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Piers Steel & Sjoerd Beugelsdijk & Herman Aguinis, 2021. "The anatomy of an award-winning meta-analysis: Recommendations for authors, reviewers, and readers of meta-analytic reviews," Journal of International Business Studies, Palgrave Macmillan;Academy of International Business, vol. 52(1), pages 23-44, February.
    2. Mahesh Shumsher Rughooputh & Rui Zeng & Ying Yao, 2015. "Protein Diet Restriction Slows Chronic Kidney Disease Progression in Non-Diabetic and in Type 1 Diabetic Patients, but Not in Type 2 Diabetic Patients: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials ," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(12), pages 1-17, December.
    3. Christopher Winchester & Kelsey E. Medeiros, 2023. "In Bounds but Out of the Box: A Meta-Analysis Clarifying the Effect of Ethicality on Creativity," Journal of Business Ethics, Springer, vol. 183(3), pages 713-743, March.
    4. Kelly R Moran & Sara Y Del Valle, 2016. "A Meta-Analysis of the Association between Gender and Protective Behaviors in Response to Respiratory Epidemics and Pandemics," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(10), pages 1-25, October.
    5. Sandra Feijóo & Raquel Rodríguez-Fernández, 2021. "A Meta-Analytical Review of Gender-Based School Bullying in Spain," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(23), pages 1-13, December.
    6. Xizheng Xu & Zhiqiang Liu & Shaoying Gong & Yunpeng Wu, 2022. "The Relationship between Empathy and Attachment in Children and Adolescents: Three-Level Meta-Analyses," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-18, January.
    7. Kathrin Wunsch & Janis Fiedler & Philip Bachert & Alexander Woll, 2021. "The Tridirectional Relationship among Physical Activity, Stress, and Academic Performance in University Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-18, January.
    8. Alan da Silveira Fleck & Margaux L. Sadoine & Stéphane Buteau & Eva Suarthana & Maximilien Debia & Audrey Smargiassi, 2021. "Environmental and Occupational Short-Term Exposure to Airborne Particles and FEV 1 and FVC in Healthy Adults: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(20), pages 1-19, October.
    9. Evangelos Danopoulos & Maureen Twiddy & Jeanette M Rotchell, 2020. "Microplastic contamination of drinking water: A systematic review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(7), pages 1-23, July.
    10. Claudia Menne-Lothmann & Wolfgang Viechtbauer & Petra Höhn & Zuzana Kasanova & Simone P Haller & Marjan Drukker & Jim van Os & Marieke Wichers & Jennifer Y F Lau, 2014. "How to Boost Positive Interpretations? A Meta-Analysis of the Effectiveness of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretation," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-26, June.
    11. Wei-Cheng Chang & Chin Lin & Cho-Hao Lee & Tzu-Ling Sung & Tao-Hsin Tung & Jorn-Hon Liu, 2017. "Vitrectomy with or without internal limiting membrane peeling for idiopathic epiretinal membrane: A meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(6), pages 1-18, June.
    12. Christopher Hansen & Holger Steinmetz & Jörn Block, 2022. "How to conduct a meta-analysis in eight steps: a practical guide," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 72(1), pages 1-19, February.
    13. Shaylea Badovinac & Jodi Martin & Camille Guérin-Marion & Monica O’Neill & Rebecca Pillai Riddell & Jean-François Bureau & Rebecca Spiegel, 2018. "Associations between mother-preschooler attachment and maternal depression symptoms: A systematic review and meta-analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(10), pages 1-27, October.
    14. Fazel, Seena & Burghart, Matthias & Fanshawe, Thomas & Gil, Sharon Danielle & Monahan, John & Yu, Rongqin, 2022. "The predictive performance of criminal risk assessment tools used at sentencing: Systematic review of validation studies," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 81(C).
    15. Amro Qaddoura & Payam Yazdan-Ashoori & Conrad Kabali & Lehana Thabane & R Brian Haynes & Stuart J Connolly & Harriette Gillian Christine Van Spall, 2015. "Efficacy of Hospital at Home in Patients with Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(6), pages 1-15, June.
    16. Boshra H. Namin & Torvald Øgaard & Jo Røislien, 2021. "Workplace Incivility and Turnover Intention in Organizations: A Meta-Analytic Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(1), pages 1-19, December.
    17. Ruohuang Jiao & Wojtek Przepiorka & Vincent Buskens, 2022. "Moderators of reputation effects in peer-to-peer online markets: a meta-analytic model selection approach," Journal of Computational Social Science, Springer, vol. 5(1), pages 1041-1067, May.
    18. Pedro Silva Moreira & Pedro R Almeida & Hugo Leite-Almeida & Nuno Sousa & Patrício Costa, 2016. "Impact of Chronic Stress Protocols in Learning and Memory in Rodents: Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(9), pages 1-24, September.
    19. Romain Cadario & Pierre Chandon, 2020. "Which Healthy Eating Nudges Work Best? A Meta-Analysis of Field Experiments," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 39(3), pages 465-486, May.
    20. repec:cup:judgdm:v:17:y:2022:i:4:p:720-744 is not listed on IDEAS
    21. Tyler Blazey & Abraham Z Snyder & Manu S Goyal & Andrei G Vlassenko & Marcus E Raichle, 2018. "A systematic meta-analysis of oxygen-to-glucose and oxygen-to-carbohydrate ratios in the resting human brain," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 13(9), pages 1-14, September.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:17:y:2020:i:24:p:9376-:d:462254. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.