Mental health and diet quality after primary treatment for ovarian cancer

Abstract

AimsTo investigate anxiety and depression after primary treatment for ovarian cancer in relation to diet quality and intake.MethodsIn a cohort of women with ovarian cancer in Australia, levels of anxiety and depression (normal, subclinical, and clinical) were assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale at 9 months post‐diagnosis. Dietary intake was assessed using a validated food frequency questionnaire at 12 months post‐diagnosis and scored using the Healthy Eating Index 2015. Multinomial logistic regression and bivariate analyses were used to investigate relationships between levels of anxiety and depression and subsequent diet quality and intake of food groups.ResultsOf 595 women, anxiety and depression were identified among 128 (21%) and 80 (13%) women, respectively. Compared to women without anxiety or depression, women with subclinical anxiety (odds ratio = 0.49, 95% confidence interval: 0.25–0.98) and those with clinical depression (odds ratio = 0.25, 95% confidence interval: 0.07–0.93) were less likely to score in the highest quartile for diet quality. Separate adjustment for age, education, employment, disease stage, body mass index, and smoking status did not attenuate these associations. In bivariate analyses, women with subclinical anxiety were more likely to report higher intakes of sweet foods. Those with clinical depression were more likely to report lower intakes of orange vegetables and wholegrains, higher intakes of sweetened beverages, and not consume alcohol or soya foods.ConclusionsAnxiety or depression after primary treatment for ovarian cancer may be associated with poorer diet quality. Efforts to improve diet quality post‐treatment should consider support for mental health.

Adherence to dietary guidelines and associated factors among rural Australian cancer survivors: a cross-sectional study

“…Fourthly, the lack of adjustment for certain factors potentially related to both regression model covariates and the dietary guideline adherence outcomes (e.g. person-level socio-economic status [ 8 ] and comorbidities such as anxiety and depression [ 34 ] may have confounded the observed effect estimates. Fifthly, while the sample size of 107 permitted binary logistic regression analysis of factors associated with moderately common outcome events (i.e.…”