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

Authors:
Open Access
Publisher website
Google Scholar
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 (I2 = 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 (I2 = 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.

This publication has 22 references indexed in Scilit: