Testing a somatization hypothesis to explain the Black–White depression paradox

David Barnes, Lisa M. Bates

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Abstract

Purpose: Epidemiologic studies document a lower prevalence of major depression in Blacks than Whites in the United States. This is paradoxical from the perspective of social stress theory. A long-standing claim in the (clinical) literature is that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. If true, the diagnostic algorithm may undercount depression in Blacks, since the screening symptoms privilege the psychological rather than somatic dimensions of depression. We test hypotheses that (1) Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites which (2) reduces their likelihood of endorsing screening symptoms, thereby undercounting Blacks’ depression and explaining the Black–White depression paradox. Methods: We use cross-sectional data collected in 1991–92 from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (n = 42,862) among Blacks and Whites endorsing at least one past-12-month depression symptom. We compare groups on depression somatization and test whether greater somatization in Blacks leads to lower endorsement of psychological screening symptoms, and therefore under-diagnosis. Results: Blacks have higher mean depression somatization scores than Whites (0.28, SE 0.04 vs. 0.15, SE 0.02), t(122) = − 2.15, p = 0.03. This difference is small and driven by Blacks’ higher endorsement of 1 somatic symptom (weight/appetite change) and Whites’ greater propensity to endorse psychological symptoms. However, Blacks have the same odds as Whites of endorsing screening symptoms, before and after adjusting for somatization. Conclusions: We find minimal evidence that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. Furthermore, this small difference does not appear to inhibit endorsement of diagnostic depression screening symptoms among Blacks, and therefore does not resolve the Black–White depression paradox.

Original languageEnglish (US)
JournalSocial psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2019

Fingerprint

Depression
Psychology
diagnostic
Appetite
privilege
Epidemiologic Studies
alcohol
Alcohols
Weights and Measures

Keywords

  • Major depressive disorder
  • Race
  • Somatization
  • United States

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology
  • Health(social science)
  • Social Psychology
  • Psychiatry and Mental health

Cite this

Testing a somatization hypothesis to explain the Black–White depression paradox. / Barnes, David; Bates, Lisa M.

In: Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 01.01.2019.

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article

Barnes, D & Bates, LM 2019, 'Testing a somatization hypothesis to explain the Black–White depression paradox', Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01707-9
Barnes D, Bates LM. Testing a somatization hypothesis to explain the Black–White depression paradox. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2019 Jan 1. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-019-01707-9
Barnes, David ; Bates, Lisa M. / Testing a somatization hypothesis to explain the Black–White depression paradox. In: Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology. 2019.
@article{9ea365a0fc314fb193a31ee1c8648683,
title = "Testing a somatization hypothesis to explain the Black–White depression paradox",
abstract = "Purpose: Epidemiologic studies document a lower prevalence of major depression in Blacks than Whites in the United States. This is paradoxical from the perspective of social stress theory. A long-standing claim in the (clinical) literature is that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. If true, the diagnostic algorithm may undercount depression in Blacks, since the screening symptoms privilege the psychological rather than somatic dimensions of depression. We test hypotheses that (1) Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites which (2) reduces their likelihood of endorsing screening symptoms, thereby undercounting Blacks’ depression and explaining the Black–White depression paradox. Methods: We use cross-sectional data collected in 1991–92 from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (n = 42,862) among Blacks and Whites endorsing at least one past-12-month depression symptom. We compare groups on depression somatization and test whether greater somatization in Blacks leads to lower endorsement of psychological screening symptoms, and therefore under-diagnosis. Results: Blacks have higher mean depression somatization scores than Whites (0.28, SE 0.04 vs. 0.15, SE 0.02), t(122) = − 2.15, p = 0.03. This difference is small and driven by Blacks’ higher endorsement of 1 somatic symptom (weight/appetite change) and Whites’ greater propensity to endorse psychological symptoms. However, Blacks have the same odds as Whites of endorsing screening symptoms, before and after adjusting for somatization. Conclusions: We find minimal evidence that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. Furthermore, this small difference does not appear to inhibit endorsement of diagnostic depression screening symptoms among Blacks, and therefore does not resolve the Black–White depression paradox.",
keywords = "Major depressive disorder, Race, Somatization, United States",
author = "David Barnes and Bates, {Lisa M.}",
year = "2019",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1007/s00127-019-01707-9",
language = "English (US)",
journal = "Social Psychiatry",
issn = "0037-7813",
publisher = "D. Steinkopff-Verlag",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Testing a somatization hypothesis to explain the Black–White depression paradox

AU - Barnes, David

AU - Bates, Lisa M.

PY - 2019/1/1

Y1 - 2019/1/1

N2 - Purpose: Epidemiologic studies document a lower prevalence of major depression in Blacks than Whites in the United States. This is paradoxical from the perspective of social stress theory. A long-standing claim in the (clinical) literature is that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. If true, the diagnostic algorithm may undercount depression in Blacks, since the screening symptoms privilege the psychological rather than somatic dimensions of depression. We test hypotheses that (1) Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites which (2) reduces their likelihood of endorsing screening symptoms, thereby undercounting Blacks’ depression and explaining the Black–White depression paradox. Methods: We use cross-sectional data collected in 1991–92 from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (n = 42,862) among Blacks and Whites endorsing at least one past-12-month depression symptom. We compare groups on depression somatization and test whether greater somatization in Blacks leads to lower endorsement of psychological screening symptoms, and therefore under-diagnosis. Results: Blacks have higher mean depression somatization scores than Whites (0.28, SE 0.04 vs. 0.15, SE 0.02), t(122) = − 2.15, p = 0.03. This difference is small and driven by Blacks’ higher endorsement of 1 somatic symptom (weight/appetite change) and Whites’ greater propensity to endorse psychological symptoms. However, Blacks have the same odds as Whites of endorsing screening symptoms, before and after adjusting for somatization. Conclusions: We find minimal evidence that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. Furthermore, this small difference does not appear to inhibit endorsement of diagnostic depression screening symptoms among Blacks, and therefore does not resolve the Black–White depression paradox.

AB - Purpose: Epidemiologic studies document a lower prevalence of major depression in Blacks than Whites in the United States. This is paradoxical from the perspective of social stress theory. A long-standing claim in the (clinical) literature is that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. If true, the diagnostic algorithm may undercount depression in Blacks, since the screening symptoms privilege the psychological rather than somatic dimensions of depression. We test hypotheses that (1) Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites which (2) reduces their likelihood of endorsing screening symptoms, thereby undercounting Blacks’ depression and explaining the Black–White depression paradox. Methods: We use cross-sectional data collected in 1991–92 from the National Longitudinal Alcohol Epidemiologic Survey (n = 42,862) among Blacks and Whites endorsing at least one past-12-month depression symptom. We compare groups on depression somatization and test whether greater somatization in Blacks leads to lower endorsement of psychological screening symptoms, and therefore under-diagnosis. Results: Blacks have higher mean depression somatization scores than Whites (0.28, SE 0.04 vs. 0.15, SE 0.02), t(122) = − 2.15, p = 0.03. This difference is small and driven by Blacks’ higher endorsement of 1 somatic symptom (weight/appetite change) and Whites’ greater propensity to endorse psychological symptoms. However, Blacks have the same odds as Whites of endorsing screening symptoms, before and after adjusting for somatization. Conclusions: We find minimal evidence that Blacks express depression more somatically than Whites. Furthermore, this small difference does not appear to inhibit endorsement of diagnostic depression screening symptoms among Blacks, and therefore does not resolve the Black–White depression paradox.

KW - Major depressive disorder

KW - Race

KW - Somatization

KW - United States

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064344706&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85064344706&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1007/s00127-019-01707-9

DO - 10.1007/s00127-019-01707-9

M3 - Article

JO - Social Psychiatry

JF - Social Psychiatry

SN - 0037-7813

ER -

Access to Document