Elsevier

Public Health

Volume 123, Issue 10, October 2009, Pages 689-693
Public Health

Original Research
Gender-related explanatory models of depression: A critical evaluation of medical articles

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.puhe.2009.09.010Get rights and content

Summary

Objectives

Although research has consistently shown a higher prevalence of depression among women compared with men, there is a lack of consensus regarding explanatory factors for these gender-related differences. The aim of this paper was to analyse the scientific quality of different gender-related explanatory models of depression in the medical database PubMed.

Study design

Qualitative and quantitative analyses of PubMed articles.

Methods

In a database search in PubMed for 2002, 82 articles on gender and depression were selected and analysed with qualitative and quantitative content analyses. In total, 10 explanatory factors and four explanatory models were found. The ISI Web of Science database was searched in order to obtain the citation number and journal impact factor for each article.

Results

The most commonly used gender-related explanatory model for depression was the biomedical model (especially gonadal hormones), followed by the sociocultural and psychological models. Compared with the other models, the biomedical model scored highest on bibliometric measures but lowest on measures of multifactorial dimensions and differences within the group of men/women.

Conclusion

The biomedical model for explaining gender-related aspects of depression had the highest quality when bibliometric methods were used. However, the sociocultural and psychological models had higher quality than the biomedical model when multifactoriality and intersectionality were analysed. There is a need for the development of new methods in order to evaluate the scientific quality of research.

Introduction

Epidemiological research on the prevalence and incidence of depressive symptoms and unipolar depressive disorders has consistently shown a preponderance in women compared with men.1 The female:male ratio varies with age, and the higher prevalence of depression among women has been shown from mid-puberty throughout adult life.2 No significant gender differences have been found in relation to bipolar depressive disorders.3

The reasons for the gender differences in unipolar depressive disorders are still not adequately understood.4 Medical reviews have been written about gender differences in depression2, 5, 6, 7 with the aim of analysing different explanations for the higher prevalence of depression in women compared with men. Different explanatory models such as artefact, genetic, hormonal, psychological and sociocultural factors have been suggested, but consensus is lacking regarding explanations for the higher prevalence of depression in women compared with men.6 An increasing number of researchers acknowledge that depression must be understood from a multifactorial perspective.7, 8 In a scientific evaluation of research on depression, the Swedish Council on Technology Assessment in Health Care9 came to the conclusion that sociocultural factors (such as adverse experiences in childhood) in combination with socialization processes and psychological factors (such as vulnerability to adverse life events and coping skills) were the most important explanatory factors for gender differences in depression. It was also concluded that genetic factors did not appear to contribute to women's increased risk for depression, while hormonal factors could have some effect but to a lesser extent than environmental factors; furthermore, there was uncertainty about neurotransmitter systems and the adrenal/thyroid axis.6, 9

While reviews of scientific articles try to evaluate the scientific evidence for different explanations, to the authors' knowledge, no studies have tried to analyse which of the explanatory factors for the higher prevalence of depression in women dominate the medical discourse. The medical discourse can be analysed in articles indexed in the medical database PubMed. It is important to analyse domination in quantitative terms because the most commonly presented explanations may influence readers, which can have both scientific and practical consequences. Some years ago, Piccinelli and Wilkinson published a review in favour of sociocultural and psychological explanations.6 A question that remains to be answered is whether domination of these explanatory models can be found in the medical literature some years after publication. In such an analysis, it is of interest to study both the prevalence of different explanatory models to gender differences in depression, and the scientific quality of the different models.

There is no agreement regarding how to measure the quality of research. One method that is increasingly used as a tool for scientific evaluation of research is bibliometric, especially citation analyses and journal impact factors.10, 11 However, criticism has been raised regarding these quantitative ways of measuring the scientific quality of research. Wallin claims that a true assessment of scientific quality cannot be obtained by analysing a publication's citation number or journal impact factor.12 Such an assessment should also include peer review of the societal effects of research. However, Wallin gives no information about what he means by societal effects or how they could be analysed in more detail. One possible societal effect of research on gender and depression is the risk of over-simplifying and exaggerating the results.13 If women as a group are portrayed as depressed, while men as a group are described as not depressed, there is a risk of essentialism; that is the tendency to regard differences between men and women as constant, pervasive and unchangeable.14 Different methods can be used in order to diminish the risk for over-generalization. One way is to use an intersectional framework in making differences visible within the group of women (and within the group of men) with regard to class, race, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, religion and other power-related dimensions.15 Another way of decreasing the risk of essentialism is to use a multifactorial framework for understanding the complex relationship between gender and depression.

The present study measured the scientific quality of medical articles indexed in PubMed with bibliometric measures and also with two questions about intersectionality and multifactorial dimensions. In this study, the term ‘gender-related model’ is used for models that try to explain the higher incidence of depression in women compared with men, and models used in single-gender analyses (why depression occurs in men, why depression occurs in women).

The aim of this paper was to analyse the prevalence and the scientific quality of different gender-related explanatory models of depression in the medical database PubMed.

The following research questions were analysed with regard to the medical articles:

  • 1.

    What gender-related explanatory models were given? In how many of the articles were the explanatory models used?

  • 2.

    Does the scientific quality differ between the explanatory models? The quality was measured with the following questions:

    • a.

      Is more than one possible gender-related explanatory model discussed?

    • b.

      Are differences within the group of men and within the group of women analysed in relation to socio-economic status, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc. (except for age)?

    • c.

      What are the mean impact factors of the journals and the mean citation numbers of the different articles in each main explanatory model?

Section snippets

Methods

The database used in this study was PubMed (the US National Library of Medicine biomedical publication database, including citations from MEDLINE and other life science journals for biomedical articles). The database search took place in December 2003 and covered 2002. Articles were selected as described.

The following search criteria were used in a search in the title section, English language and the descriptors: Depress* AND (sex OR wom* OR gender OR man OR men OR female OR male OR feminis*).

Results

The codes, the subcategories and the categories are described in Table 1.

Overall, 10 subcategories (gonadal hormones, genetic factors, other biological factors, life circumstances, cultural factors, psychological factors, behaviour, sexual orientation, body image, measurement bias) and four categories (biomedical model, socio-cultural model, psychological model, artefact) were identified. The majority of codes and subcategories were found in articles on depression in women (most of them focused

Discussion

The main finding was that the most commonly used gender-related model was the biomedical model, which scored highest on bibliometric measures but lowest when multifactoriality and intersectionality were analysed.

Conclusions

The biomedical model, compared with the sociocultural and psychological models, seemed to have greater prominence within the medical discourse in explaining gender-related aspects of depression. However, the biomedical model scored lower than the sociocultural and psychological models when multifactoriality and intersectionality were analysed. There is a need to develop new methods for evaluation of the scientific quality of research.

References (20)

There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (43)

  • The relation of gender role attitudes with depression and generalised anxiety disorder in two Russian cities

    2020, Journal of Affective Disorders
    Citation Excerpt :

    To conclude, our research is in line with recent studies suggesting a relationship of GRAs with prevalent symptoms of CMDs. Despite methodological limitations of our study, we argue that a call for a more thorough consideration of gender inequality and complementarity as social determinants of CMDs is justified (Hammarström et al., 2009; Hammarström and Phillips, 2012; Neitzke, 2016). More research on gender inequality and complementarity might facilitate the development of new explanatory models of CMDs (Hammarström et al., 2009).

  • Gender, mental health and ageing

    2019, Maturitas
    Citation Excerpt :

    Age-related physiological changes in endocrine system functioning are often implicated in biological explanations of sex differences in mental health outcomes. Most notably, these have included hormonal factors [73,74] with perhaps the clearest example provided by the life course staging of schizophrenia. The neuroprotective effects of estrogen and the menopause transition have been linked to the later onset of schizophrenia for women and less disabling disease course during their reproductive years [75].

  • Sex hormones and adult hippocampal neurogenesis: Regulation, implications, and potential mechanisms

    2016, Frontiers in Neuroendocrinology
    Citation Excerpt :

    The severity of disease is also linked to sex, as Alzheimer’s disease follows a more severe progression in women relative to men (Irvine et al., 2012). It is beyond the scope of this review to delve into why these sex differences in disease incidence and severity exist, but the reader is directed to other reviews on this subject (Hammarström et al., 2009; Mielke et al., 2014; Vest and Pike, 2013). Beyond the context of disease, sex differences exist in certain domains of cognition, as reviewed in Hamson et al. (in press), and in neurogenesis, as reviewed in Galea et al. (2013).

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text