Does retirement trigger depressive symptoms? A systematic review and meta-analysis. (1st December 2021)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Odone, A.; Gianfredi, V.; Vigezzi, G. P.; Amerio, A.; Ardito, C.; d'Errico, A.; Stuckler, D.; Costa, G.
• Is Part Of: Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences. Volume 30(2021)
• Publication Date: 2021-12-01
• Subjects: depression -- epidemiology -- prevention -- retirement -- social factors -- systematic review and meta-analysis; Epidemiology -- Periodicals; Mental illness -- Periodicals; Community psychiatry -- Periodicals; 362.2
• DOI: 10.1017/S2045796021000627
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2045-7960

Abstract

Abstract: Aims: Retirement is a major life transition that may improve or worsen mental health, including depression. Existing studies provide contradictory results. We conducted a systematic review with meta-analysis to quantitatively pool available evidence on the association of retirement and depressive symptoms. Methods: We applied PRISMA guidelines to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to retrieve, quantitatively pool and critically evaluate the association between retirement and both incident and prevalent depression and to understand better the potential role of individual and contextual-level determinants. Relevant original studies were identified by searching PubMed, Embase, PsycINFO and the Cochrane Library, through 4 March 2021. Subgroup and sensitivity meta-analyses were conducted by gender, study design (longitudinal v. cross-sectional studies), study quality score (QS) and considering studies using validated scales to diagnose depression. Heterogeneity between studies was evaluated with I 2 statistics. Results: Forty-one original studies met our a priori defined inclusion criteria. Meta-analysis on more than half a million subjects ( n = 557 111) from 60 datasets suggested a protective effect of retirement on the risk of depression [effect size (ES) = 0.83, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.74–0.93], although with high statistical heterogeneity between risk estimates ( χ 2 = 895.19, df = 59, I 2 = 93.41%, p -value < 0.0001). Funnel plot asymmetry and trim and fill method suggested a minor potential publication bias. Results were consistent, confirm their robustness and suggest stronger protective effects when progressively restricting the included studies based on quality criteria: (i) studies with the highest QS [55 datasets, 407 086 subjects, ES = 0.81, 95% CI = 0.71–0.91], (ii) studies with a high QS and using validated assessment tools to diagnose depression (44 datasets, 239 453 subjects, ES = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.65–0.88) and (iii) studies of high quality, using a validated tool and with a longitudinal design (24 datasets, 162 004 subjects, ES = 0.76, 95% CI = 0.64–0.90). We observed a progressive reduction in funnel plot asymmetry. About gender, no statistically significant difference was found (females ES = 0.79, 95% CI = 0.61–1.02 v. men ES = 0.87, 95% CI = 0.68–1.11). Conclusions: Pooled data suggested that retirement reduces by nearly 20% the risk of depression; such estimates got stronger when limiting the analysis to longitudinal and high-quality studies, even if results are affected by high heterogeneity. As retirement seems to have an independent and protective effect on mental health and depressive symptoms, greater flexibility in retirement timing should be granted to older workers to reduce their mental burden and avoid the development of severe depression. Retirement may also be identified as a target moment for preventive interventions, particularly primary and secondary prevention, to promote health and wellbeing in older ages, boosting the observed impact.