Summary Of The Dutch Lifelines Cohort Study

This paper summarizes the events following a study created in 2016 by several researchers to describe the link between an individual’s income and major depressive disorder through a sample of participants of the Dutch Lifelines Cohort Study. Within this paper, the researcher’s methods and hypotheses are mentioned as well as several personal opinions about the researcher’s methods and results. These opinions include whether or not this research was diverse and if it followed ethical principles. A list of limitations about the research is also clearly stated towards the end of this paper followed by examples of what could have been done differently with the hope of gaining more insight through the results that were present in this study. In conclusion

Major depressive disorder is described as being a state of severe depression over the course of hours, days or even up to two weeks also complimented by the lack of interest in a great amount of everyday activities. After discovering that environment and income can have a very large impact on major depressive disorder, a question was raised. Is low income a source of this disorder?(Klijs et al., 2016) Is comparing one’s income to the income of others around them a leading factor of this disorder?(Klijs et al., 2016) Then lastly, is it possible that having other health issues such as chronic disease, could lead those with a low income to have a greater possibility of having a major depressive episode.(Klijs et al., 2016) To answer these questions, 71,058 participants from Lifelines Cohort study were chosen with informed consent to be experiments for this research project.(Klijs et al., 2016) By the end of the study, results were found favoring that low income led to major depressive disorder but living in a high income neighborhood with low income did not.(Klijs et al.,

The first limitation that was reached was something that was stated at the end of the research. The results of the conceptual models did not leave room for explanation.(Klijs et al., 2016) The only conceptual model that had reason behind it was that stating that,“The association between neighborhood income and major depressive episodes is explained by diseases, lifestyle factors, stress and social participation.”(Klijs et al., 2016) Which can be easily explained because chronic disease, stress and lack of social participation itself can all lead to depressive episodes in any circumstance. With the third conceptual model stating that “a high income of the neighborhood buffers the effect of a low individual income on major depressive disorder,” there is no reasoning to back up this statement.(Klijs et al., 2016) Because of this, the results of this study did not support the relative poverty model.(Klijs et al., 2016) The second limitation that the researchers came to was one not stated in their research report because it was possible that it hadn’t crossed their minds. It was made very clear that the participants in this study were given very clear information about major depressive disorder which also means that they could have showed these symptoms because they knew that it was what the researchers were looking for. There also could have been a