Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2019 Feb 1.
Published in final edited form as: J Affect Disord. 2017 Oct 31;227:580–587. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2017.10.046

A longitudinal study of Latino and non-Hispanic mothers’ and fathers’ depressive symptoms and its association with parent-child communication

Susan M De Luca 1, Yan Yueqi 2, DiCorcia Daley 3, Yolanda Padilla 4
PMCID: PMC5805639  NIHMSID: NIHMS922257  PMID: 29172050

Abstract

Background

Roughly 8% of the U.S. population report moderate or severe depression for two or more weeks and Latinos (3.7%) report higher rates of severe depression compared to non-Hispanic whites (2.6%) (Pratt & Brody, 2014). As the Latino population continues to grow in the U.S., there is little research on the manifestations for depression, and how this affects the family system longitudinally.

Methods

Based on data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a 3-step latent class analysis examined the association of self-reported parental depressive symptoms and their children’s perceived levels of closeness and openness to communicate with their parents over 9 years (N=3,956 families).

Results

Latino parents reported four different depressive patterns, while non-Hispanic parents were more diversified and had six patterns in terms of latent class analysis. Latinos reported episodic symptoms, while NH parents were more likely to report chronic depressive symptoms over time. Regardless of race/ethnicity, parental depressive symptoms negatively affected their children’s reported level of parental closeness and openness to communicate with mothers and fathers.

Limitations

As with any self-report data, the risk of social desirability bias is likely still present. Additionally, these results cannot be generalized to the broader U.S. population.

Conclusions

Due to the different mental health presentations over 9 years, and following the federal initiatives (National Institute of Mental Health, 2015) of early and consistent surveillance, we advise that clinicians and primary care physicians screen for depressive symptoms at least yearly.

Keywords: children, depression, longitudinal, parent-child connectedness

The Centers for Disease Control (CDC) recently found that Latinos had higher rates of mild (17%), moderate (6%) and severe (4%) depression compared to non-Hispanic whites respectively (15%; 4%; 3%) and that U.S. Latinas (9%) are more likely to experience moderate and severe depression compared to non-Hispanic white (7%) women (Pratt & Brody, 2014). This is alarming as Latinos are not only the largest racial/ethnic U.S. minority group in the U.S., but are projected to constitute roughly 30% of the country’s population by 2050 (Kelly, 2010). Additionally, mental health outcomes have also been linked to acculturation and acculturative stress. While immigrants and first-generation individuals often have fewer mental health concerns, the data demonstrate that that 2nd and 3rd generation Latinos have higher rates of mental illness (Alegría, Mulvaney-Day, Torres, Polo, Cao, & Canino, 2007; Montazer & Wheaton, 2011; Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). Research indicates that there are potential protective factors associated with Latino cultural norms, namely living within a collectivist household or the importance of personal relationships that potentially are decreased based on generational status and acculturation level (Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). Yet, numerous studies indicate that the children of parents who report severe mood disorders, such as chronic depression, are at increased risk for mental health problems when compared to children whose parents have less severe mood disorders (Beardslee, Versage, & Gladstone, 1998; Bennet, Brewer, & Rankin, 2012). For these reasons, depression in Latino adults is a salient issue that warrants further research to inform empirically based prevention initiatives.

The impact of parental mental health and parent-child connectedness

Mutual feelings of care, trust, and support between individuals, categorized as ‘connectedness’ in the literature, is a protective factor for a wide range of mental health outcomes (Whitlock, Wyman & Moore, 2014; Author, 2012). Little is known regarding the influence of parental mental health, and whether their conditions are chronic or sporadic in nature, pertaining to parent-child connectedness. Youth whose family members are experiencing maladaptive coping and mental health concerns often report weak relationships with these adults (O’Donnell et al., 2004).

The foundation for a child’s ability to connect with adults is their connection to their parents. For example, maternal depression is negatively linked to a child’s interpersonal relationships and functioning (Coyne, 1976; Proulx, Helms & Buehler, 2007; Whisman, 2001). The literature strongly contends that children whose mothers are chronically depressed are especially at risk for negative cognitive, behavioral, and physical health outcomes themselves (Turney, 2012). Considering these factors, lifelong relationships, especially with one’s parents, are crucial developmentally, and to the likelihood of experiencing maladaptive outcomes (Mayberry, Espelage & Koenig, 2009; Author, 2012).

The value of including information about both mothers and fathers

Although there are many more studies focusing on mothers than fathers, maternal depression may more strongly influence children than paternal depression (Connell & Goodman, 2002; Kane & Garber, 2004; Klein et al., 2005; Lewinsohn, Olino, & Klein, 2005; Ramchandani, Stein, Evans, & O’Connor, 2005; Ramchandani et al., 2008; Rohde, Lewinsohn, Klein, & Seeley, 2005; Wilson & Durbin, 2010). Though findings are often correlational and equivocal, Latino mothers’ depression have also been related to an increase in mental illness among their partners (Parke et al., 2004; Wheeler et al., 2011).

While other studies focusing on adolescent samples have found that fathers who self-report depression had a direct effect on internalized and externalized disorders in their children (Shafer, Fielding & Wendt, 2017). Yet other longitudinal work has shown that fathers’ reported mental health concerns can adversely affect their young children’s mental health outcomes differently depending on the age of the parent (Author et al, 2017) and that adolescents’ self-perceived emotional support from their fathers’ functions as a protective factor for ethnic minority adolescents (Author, 2012). Clearly, the links of parental depression, including paternal depression, which has been majorly excluded from past research, to children’s’ development should not be overlooked. Intergenerational links focusing on parents’ mental health concerns and their child’s health outcomes is demonstrated in the literature albeit are limited, especially related to minority populations (Beardslee, Versage & Gladstone, 1998; Author, 2012; Author et al, 2017).

Assessing parental mental health longitudinally

Besides including a stronger emphasis on fathers in the literature, there is a need to examine how parental mental health operates longitudinally and how this is related to family functioning. Additionally, there is a dearth of information after 12 months postpartum regarding the presentation and family effects of having a parent with depression Woolhouse, McDonald & Brown, 2012; Brown & Lumley, 2000; MacArthur, Lewis & Knox, 1991). Two longitudinal studies have examined maternal depression and infant cohorts and indicated that there was a higher self-report of depression by the time the baby was 18 months of age (Aasheim et al., 2000) and also at 5 years of age (Najman et al, 2000) while other studies have found depressive symptoms among mothers consistently into 36 months post-partum (Wang et al, 2000). While cross-sectional studies are helpful in understanding specific points in time related to depression and the parent-child relationship, and longitudinal studies often follow families into their child’s first year of life, we believe that following children from birth to latency helps detail an important developmental period that is often understudied.

Exploring key research questions specific to Latinos

Families experiencing depression can often lead to a decreased sense of connectedness among family members. These maladaptive responses have long term consequences as well including poor social adjustment, mental illness for children and later in life as well (Beardselle, Versage & Giadstone, 1998; Goodman & Gotlib, 2002; Weissman et al, 2006). Feelings of uncertainty, anxiety and abandonment can sometimes personify these relationships and these family interactions can mediate between maternal/paternal depression and their children’s mental health concerns.

Due to cultural norms often associated with Latino families, these outcomes may be particularly burdensome for individuals that value family cohesion, collectivism and the importance of the parent-child relationship (Corona et al., 2005; Valdez, Abegglen, & Hauser, 2013). A study of 329 Latino adolescents (predominantly of Mexican origin) in the southwestern United States, indicated that Latino adolescents were more likely to report negative effects from family conflict, including internalizing and externalizing symptoms, than non-Latino adolescents (Crean, 2008; Prado et al., 2008, Valdez et al., 2013). Little is known regarding how children’s sense of connectedness to their parents is influenced by parental mental health, especially among Latino families. Our study is the first to examine Latino and non-Hispanic families longitudinally in terms of parental mental health outcomes and their child’s reported level of connectedness and closeness to their parents.

Our study was based on three hypotheses based upon the literature. First, we hypothesized that, the presentation of parental depressive symptoms will more likely occur just after birth and start to decline after their child’s fifth birthday, as the first five years of parenthood are often the most stressful and strongly associated with parental mental health (Woolhouse, Gartland, Mensah & Brown, 2015). Second, Latino parents would have episodic feelings of sadness/depression and non-Hispanics would report chronic forms of depressive symptoms (Pratt & Brody, 2014). Third, we hypothesized that children of parents with chronic or episodic depressive symptoms would report lower levels of parent-child connectedness at age 9 than children with parents without depressive symptoms (Beardselle, Versage & Giadstone, 1998; Goodman & Gotlib, 2002; Weissman et al, 2006).

Methods

Sample

Our longitudinal study used data from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, a cohort study that tracks at-risk families on a variety of factors including parental relationships and children’s wellbeing. The overall sample consists of 4,898 families (Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, & McLanahan, 2001). The Study’s sampling design is as follows: 1) random selection of 20 U.S. cities with a population of over 200,000; 2) within each city, 75 hospitals were selected; 3) random selection of eligible families were asked to participate in the study and data collection. Mothers were invited to participate in the study after their child’s birth at which time they also they identified their newborn child’s father. Both mother and father were initially interviewed in the hospital shortly after their child’s birth. The subsequent surveys were distributed when their child was 1, 3, 5, and 9 years of age. There was also an oversampling of single mothers, (approximately 3,600 single and 1,000 married). See Reichman, Teiter, Garfinkel and McLanahan, 2001 for more details on the research design and data collection procedures. We stratified the sample of families by child’s ethnicity as Latino in comparison to non-Hispanic parents, who could be of any race. Families who did not report their child’s ethnicity (830 families) or had missing data on all the variables related to the research questions (101 families) were excluded from this study. For non-Hispanic families, 11 mothers misidentified the biological fathers at their child’s birth and reported it in a later survey response. To study the father sample that has been tracked consistently, this study also excluded these 11 families. The final sample size for our study was 1,467 Latino families and 2,489 non-Hispanic families and in this study.

We used all 4 waves of data (from birth to age 9) collected from individual interviews with mothers and fathers separately to detect the longitudinal patterns of parental depressive symptoms. All mothers and fathers were asked the same questions. We observed the impact of parental depressive symptoms on parent-child connectedness based on their 9-year-old child’s self-report. Due to the unbalanced nature of the sample based on Latino and non-Hispanic families (NHispanic=1,467; Nnon-Hispanic =2,489) and the variant patterns of depressive symptoms among Latino versus non-Hispanic parents (Pratt & Brody, 2014), we classified Latino and non-Hispanic parents’ depressive symptoms separately and then observed the impacts of Latino and non-Hispanic parents’ trends on their relationship with their child separately.

Measures

The distal outcome measures for our dependent variable, child’s self-reported feelings of connectedness to both parents separately, in the current study are maternal and paternal connection and sharing important ideas with their child. Children at age 9 were asked: 1) how close they felt towards their mother and father (separate questions for both mother and father) and 2) how well the child and his/her mother and father shared ideas and talked about issues that really matter (separate questions for both mother and father). These two items were drawn from the Family Functioning and the Middle Childhood and Adolescent (FFMCA) section of the National Survey of Child Health (Blumberg et al., 2005; Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing & Columbia Population Research Center, 2013). The Fragile Families study includes six items that measure parent-child relationships developed by FFMCA. Due to lack of validation studies, this study tested validity and reliability of the measures first and demonstrated low Cronbach’s Alphas and construct validity of the six items. As a result, the authors decided to use only the two items that mainly measure parent-child connectedness. These questions are rated on a four-point Likert scale with a lower score indicating higher levels of reported closeness to the parent. To make the results easier to interpret, this study reverse coded the scores so that a higher score indicated a higher level of parent-child closeness.

Parental Depression were based on the Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form (CIDI-SF), which is a single question (Pattern, 1997). Parents were asked if they felt sad/depressed for two or more weeks in the past 12 months with the options of “yes” or “no”. As a result, the measure was dichotomously coded as yes (1) or no (0). The correct classification (sensitivity) percentage for major depressive episode (MDE) in the CIDI-SF was 93.9%, indicating excellent overall classification accuracy, and the MDE item yielded a screening scale with consistently high sensitivity or specificity across racial/ethnic subgroups (Kessler, Andrews, Mroczek, Ustun, & Wittchen, 1998).

Covariates

Mothers and fathers self-identified their race as “Caucasian,” “African American,” (the reference group), “American Indian,” and “other.” We included race/ethnicity in order to ascertain any disparities related to these factors based on the current literature (see Pratt & Brody, 2014). Mothers and fathers were also asked if they were born in the U.S. This question was asked as there is research indicating that immigrants have better mental health outcomes than those who were born in the U.S (Alegría, Mulvaney-Day, Torres, Polo, Cao, & Canino, 2007; Montazer & Wheaton, 2011; Viruell-Fuentes, 2007). Finally, we wanted to control for residential status as we believed that parents who lived in the home would have different relationships with their children compared to parents who lived outside of the child’s household at the age of 9 with the options “all/almost of the time” (the reference group), “sometimes,” and “none of the time.” Parents’ age was measured in years as age is often a control for studies. But more specifically mental health is often associated with age. For example, mental health symptoms often are more commonly presented in later adolescence (ages 20–26), and that is the mean age of the parents in our study (Kessler et. al., 2007.

Data Analysis

The manual 3-step estimation, utilizing Latent Class Analysis, with a regression auxiliary model was used to detect the distinct patterns of maternal and paternal depression longitudinally, and their impacts on their child’s self-report of closeness to each parent (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2014). Children reported their connectedness with mothers and fathers separately. To measure a child’s connectedness with both parents, this study used a latent-based approach that allows the scores of both parents’ connectedness with their children to be loaded on the same construct. The latent-based construct has advantages of removing the measurement errors compared with averaging or summing scores (Little, 2012). Furthermore, parents’ reported depressive symptoms have different longitudinal patterns (e.g. long-term or episodic). This study was not focused on either type of depression and therefore other types of analysis including latent growth curve modeling, which is typically used when examining the trajectory of an event (i.e. depression), would not be appropriate given the research questions posed. We are examining patterns of parental depression instead of the growth of depression symptoms over time. The measure itself, a dichotomous question of parental depression, would not be appropriate for latent growth curve modeling. Instead, the study used the manual 3-step approach that allows for the classification of heterogeneity of the chronicity of maternal/paternal depression. The classes can be preserved to predict distal outcomes with no dramatic classification changes (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2014). Due to the nature of longitudinal data analyses, this study employed weighted estimates using the weight of the Year 1 wave in which the most people were interviewed and this also addresses for attrition (Carlson, 2008).

The 3-step process is as follows: 1) to classify parental depression patterns from child’s age 1 until 9 (i.e., Latent Class Analysis (LCA)); 2) compute the probabilities for the most likely latent class membership by latent class, accounting for the measurement errors estimated in Step 1; 3) estimate the auxiliary model where the latent class variable is measured by the most likely class variable N and the measurement error is fixed and pre-specified to the values computed in Step 2 (Asparouhov & Muthen, 2014). The parent-child connectedness and covariates were added to the auxiliary model in Step 3. Since the distal outcome measures are ordinal, maximum likelihood (ML) estimation with Mean- and Variance-Adjusted Weighted Least Square (WLSMV) were added in Step 3 to handle non-normal data and examine how the latent classes of parental/maternal depression are related to parent-child connectedness while controlling for the covariates (Asparouhov, 2015).

In Step 1, Mplus Version 7.3 (Muthen & Muthen, 1998–2016) evaluated the fit of a two-class solution followed by a three-class solution, and so on, until the best solution was reached. The Bayesian Information Criteria (BIC) and the adjusted LR chi-square test of exact fit reported overall relative and absolute model fit. The Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT Test (Adj LMR-LRT) compared the fit of the K-class solution with a model with one less class. Non-significant results suggest that a more parsimonious class solution is accurate enough to reflect the data. Finally, the approximate correct model probability (cmP) for a k-class model approximates the actual probability of k-class model being correct model relative to a set of J models under consideration – the higher probability indicates the more likelihood to be correct.

To conduct the classification diagnoses, relative entropy tested the overall precision of classification across all the latent classes. A value ≥ .8 indicated an overall good separation of the latent classes (Masyn, 2013). We then conducted the class-specific diagnoses for the best fitting model. The modal class assignment proportion (mcaP) falls within the 95% confidence interval for the corresponding model-estimated. Pr (c=k) suggests a good modally-assigned classification. The odds of correct classification (OCC) and average posterior class probability (AvePP) were employed to test classification precision. An OOC value >.5 or an AvePP value > .7 indicates adequate separation and classification precision. In terms of specific parameters for LCA models, we used the item probability, which refers to the probability of an individual in the specific class endorsing an item (Nylund, Bellmore, Nishina, & Graham, 2007). Muthen (2010) suggests that full information maximum likelihood (FIML) performs well to handle cases with missing data when the entropy is 0.8 or larger. This study chose 0.8 or above as the standard for the entropy and employed FIML to address missing data for the analyses (e.g., Enders & Bandalos, 2001).

Results

Latino Model

Results of model fit (Table 2) indicated that a four-class model was the most parsimonious for Latino parents to adequately capture the homogeneity of class membership and results of classification comparison suggests a four-class model meets the classification precision standards. In the four-class model, Class 1 (N=310, 21%), “maternal depression at child age 1”, was specified by no paternal depression but maternal depression at child age 1. Class 2 (N=262, 18%), “paternal depression at child age 3”, was typified by no maternal depression but relatively high paternal depression at child’s age of 3. Class 3 (N=97, 7%), “maternal depression at child ages 3 and 9”, was characterized by a high risk of maternal depression at both child ages 3 and 9, but not paternal. Class 4 (N=798, 54%), “no risk”, the reference group, was the most prevalent and had low rates of depression across all waves.

Table 2.

Fit of Competing Models for Latino and non-Hispanic Families

LL NFP LR chi2 (df), p-value BIC CAIC AWE Adj_LMR_LRT_p-value BF Entropy cmPk
Model for Depression of Latino Parents
Class 2 −3751.62 17 294.86(233), <.01 7627.19 7644.19 7802.13 0.46 >10 0.69 <.01
Class 3 −3678.68 26 257.61(225), 0.07 7546.93 7572.93 7814.49 0.74 >10 0.71 <.01
Class 4 −3636.88 35 238.32(215), 0.13 7528.95 7563.95 7889.13 0.47 >10 0.77 0.94
Class 5 −3606.87 44 217.82(206), 0.27 7534.53 7578.53 7987.34 0.32 <.10 0.81 0.06
Class 6 −3580.76 53 205.12(198), 0.35 7547.94 7600.94 8093.36 0.46 <.10 0.82 <.01
Class 7 −3559.81 62 193.92(191), 0.43 7571.65 7633.65 8209.69 0.44 <.10 0.85 <.01
Class 8 −3544.64 71 177.68(180), 0.53 7606.94 7677.94 8337.60 0.75 <.10 0.83 <.01
Model for Depression of non-Hispanic Parents
Class 2 −7507.98 17 450.64(236), <.01 15148.89 15049.97 15094.97 0.74 >10 0.67 <.01
Class 3 −7292.98 26 379.96(227), <.01 14789.27 14637.95 14706.66 0.57 >10 0.82 <.01
Class 4 −7209.46 35 361.96(218), <.01 14692.61 14488.92 14581.40 0.51 <.10 0.84 <.01
Class 5 −7184.97 44 335.63(209), <.01 14714.01 14457.94 14574.21 0.52 >10 0.73 <.01
Class 6 −7146.47 53 297.16(199), <.01 14707.37 14398.93 14538.98 0.27 >10 0.88 0.99
Class 7 −7137.5 62 287.38(190), <.01 14759.82 14399.01 14562.83 0.46 <.10 0.77 <.01
Class 8 −7113.31 71 283.59(182), <.01 14781.80 14368.61 14556.22 0.54 <.10 0.91 <.01
Class 9 −7067.83 80 241.18(172), <.01 14761.23 14295.66 14507.06 0.48 >10 0.77 <.01
Class 10 −7061.97 89 229.39(163), <.01 14819.89 14284.88 14520.05 0.74 <.10 0.90 <.01
Class 11 −7054.11 98 240.87(154), <.01 14874.53 14399.41 14658.79 0.76 <.10 0.91 <.01
Class 12 −7020.69 107 194.56(144), <.01 14878.08 14255.38 14538.58 0.76 >10 0.79 <.01
Open in a new tab

NOTE: LL-Log Likelihood; NFP- Number of Free Parameters; LR chi2 (df)- log- likelihood ration (LR) Chi-Square Test; BIC- Bayesian Inforamtion Criterion; CAIC-Consistent Akaike’s Information Criterion; AWE-Approximate Weight of Evidence Criterion; Adj_LMR_LRT_Test- The Lo-Mendell-Rubin Adjusted LRT Test; BF- Bayes Factor; Entropy-Entropy; cmPk-The approximate correct model probability

After classifying the patterns of parental depression in Step 1, the next step was to compute the probabilities for the most likely latent class membership by latent class using the measurement errors determined in the previous step. The final step was to run the auxiliary model by using the most likely class and the measurement error specified in Step 2, and adding the distal outcomes and covariates into the model. Results of Step 3 revealed that after controlling for covariates (Table 4), comparing to the no-risk class, the remaining classes for Latino families all have a significantly lower closeness between parents and their child at age 9, and the child from any of the remaining classes are less likely to share important ideas with parents. The lowest closeness between parents and their child occurred in the class with paternal depression at child age 3 (Mean=−1.46, wald=−4.83, p<.001). The least likelihood of their child sharing important ideas to their parent was in Latino families with maternal depression at child ages 3 and 9 (Mean=−1.79, wald=−3.02, p<.01).

Table 4.

Results of Mean Differences of Parent-Child Connectedness among Groups with Different Depression Patterns Among Latino and non-Hispanic Families**

Model Predictive of How Close Child feels to Parent
Model Predictive of How Well Parent and Child Share Important Ideas
Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. 95 C.I. of Estimate p-value Effect Size Estimate S.E. Est./S.E. 95 C.I. of Estimate p-value Effect Size
Latino
 Class-1 −1.11 0.314 −3.536 [−1.626, −0.594] <.001 −0.148 −1.314 0.418 −3.143 [−2.002, −0.626] 0.002 −0.131
 Class-2 −1.46 0.303 −4.827 [−1.961, −0.964] <.001 −0.202* −1.161 0.425 −2.731 [−1.860, −0.461] 0.006 −0.114
 Class-3 −1.40 0.426 −3.292 [−2.105, −0.702] 0.001 −0.138 −1.792 0.593 −3.020 [−2.768, −0.816] 0.003 −0.126
 Class-4 (Reference Group)
Non-Hispanic
 Class-1 −1.72 0.206 −8.379 [−2.126, −1.32] <.001 −0.218* −1.009 0.119 −8.481 [−1.242, −0.776] <.0 01 −0.220*
 Class-2 −1.53 0.180 −8.527 [−1.889, −1.183] <.001 −0.221* −1.733 0.201 −8.624 [−2.127, −1.339] <.001 −0.224*
 Class-3 −0.61 0.102 −5.981 [−0.814, −0.412] <.001 −0.155 −1.447 0.360 −4.014 [−2.154, −0.74] <.001 −0.104
 Class-4 −2.47 0.684 −3.613 [−3.810, −1.130] <.001 −0.094 −2.752 0.809 −3.400 [−4.338, −1.166] 0.001 −0.088
 Class-5 (Reference Group)
 Class-6 −1.98 0.239 −8.285 [−2.452, −1.514] <.001 −0.215* −2.391 0.334 −7.155 [−3.046, −1.736] <.001 −0.186
Open in a new tab
*

Cohen’s d: 0.2-Small ES, 0.5-Medium ES, 0.8-Large ES

**

Covariates include mother and father’s age, race, whether they were a U.S. natural-born citizen or not, and whether they lived with the child at child age 9 Classes for Latino Families: Class-1: Maternal depression at child age 1; Class-2: Paternal depression at child age 3; Class-3: Maternal depression at child ages 3 and 9; Class-4: No risk

Classes for Non-Hispanic Families: Class-1: Maternal chronic depression; Class2: Paternal depression at early child age; Class-3: Maternal depression at child age 5; Class-4: Both parents’ depression at child age 5; Class-5: No risk; Class-6: Paternal chronic depression

Non-Hispanic Model

While the Latino model had 4 discrete classes, the non-Hispanic model had more heterogeneous patterns of depressive symptoms. Results of model fit (Table 2) suggest that a six-class model was the most parsimonious for non-Hispanic parents to adequately capture the homogeneity of class membership. Results of classification comparison for non-Hispanic parents showed that the six-class model meets the classification precision standards. In the six-class model, Class 1 (N=271, 11%), “maternal chronic depression”, was characterized by a high prevalence of maternal depression from the child’s age of 1 to 9, but low paternal depression over time. Class 2 (N=158, 6%), “paternal depression at early child age”, had a high prevalence of paternal depression at their child was age 1 and 3, but no maternal depression over time. Class 3 (N=128, 5%), “maternal depression at child age 5”, was described by 100 percent probabilities of maternal depression at child’s age of 5, but not paternal. Class 4 (N=52, 2%), “both parents’ depression at child age 5”, was characterized by maternal depression at their child’s ages of 1 and 5 and paternal depression at child’s age of 5. Class 5 (N=1814, 73%), “no depression risks”, the reference group, was the most prevalent and described by low rates of both mother’s and father’s depression over time. Class 6 (N=76, 3%), “paternal chronic depression”, was characterized by low risk of mothers, but high risk of paternal depression at their child’s ages of 3, 5 and 9.

Similar to Latino families, after adding distal outcomes and comparing to the no-risk class, the remaining classes from non-Hispanic families all had significantly lower closeness and sharing of important ideas between parent and child. The lowest closeness and the least frequent sharing of ideas between parent and child both occurred in the class with both parents reporting depressive symptoms when their child was 5 years of age as well as their mother reporting depressive symptoms when their child was one year of age (Meancloseness=−2.47, wald=−3.58, p<.001; Meancloseness=−2.75, wald=−3.33, p<.001).

Discussion

Our study, the first of its kind, examined the association of Latino and non-Hispanic parental depressive symptoms and their child’s perceived level of closeness with their parents over 9 years. Overall, based on the 3-step latent class analyses, our hypothesis that depressive symptoms would decrease by the child’s 5th birthday were not found for either group. Second, among those who reported depressive symptoms, Latino families reported episodic symptoms and no chronic symptomology, while non-Hispanic parents were characterized by episodic and chronic depressive symptoms. Moreover, non-Hispanic parents encountered concurrent depression while it was more common in Latino families to have one parent report depressive symptoms over time. Finally, our hypotheses were supported by our findings that parental depressive symptoms would be negatively related to children’s reported level of closeness to either of their parent. A further discussion of our findings is below.

Based on current literature, we were surprised to find that parental depressive symptoms did not fit a specific pattern. Studies, albeit many focus on birth to 36 months thus providing limited data, indicate that parental depression usually peaks in the first year of the child’s life and then plateaus as a child ages until adolescence. This was not the case for the families in our sample. This could be due to a number of extraneous factors, as the families in our study were more likely to live in poverty, their patterns of depressive symptoms could be different than the general population. For example, non-Hispanic whites (17%) and non-Hispanic Blacks (16%) who live in poverty have much higher rates of depression compared to Latinos (13%) living in poverty (Pratt & Brody, 2014). The fewer classes related to depressive symptoms among Latinos compared to non-Hispanic families potentially indicate that while there might be more parsimonious patterns of depressive in Latino families, potentially other factors including economic status should be explored in future studies. Additionally, studies should examine longitudinally how the effects of poverty are related to differences in depressive symptoms among mothers and fathers separately.

While we cannot make direct comparisons, non-Hispanic parents appeared to report chronic depressive symptoms as Latino families experienced more episodic depressive symptoms. Additional work is needed to extrapolate the significance and the antecedents of mental health symptomology in parents with young children and pre-adolescents and specifically how ethnicity plays a role in these among families. Potential factors for episodic depressive symptoms among Latino parents could be attributed to economic stressors and inadequate employment conditions (Parke et al., 2004; Wheeler et al., 2011), but also systemic oppression, may be further compounded by having a child and the additional financial burdens a family poses. Cultural norms might also be a protective factor for depressive symptomology among Latinos compared to non-Hispanic families. For example, the cultural norms of collectivism and personalismo might play a role in more episodic depressive symptoms (Alegría, et al, 2007). As distress increases, Latino parents might call upon family or extended family for support and that might not be the case for other racial/ethnic groups. Future research should examine how immediate and extended family plays a role in depressive symptomology in parents of young children and how this plays a role in family functioning longitudinally.

Parental connectedness is a meaningful developmental outcome in early adolescence. With families who experience mental illness, especially persistent, family closeness could be challenging to sustain (Beardselle, Versage & Giadstone, 1998; Goodman & Gotlib, 2002; Weissman et al, 2006). While studies focusing on latency aged children are not as common, even by age 9, we found that parental depressive symptoms were associated with a child’s self-disclosure of the quality of their parental relationships. Our study’s findings indicate that parental depressive symptoms can have longitudinal outcomes on the quality of relationships even after symptoms are gone, have lessened or plateaued. While we did not have data to substantiate their child’s mental health, we do know that a lack of parental closeness can have deleterious effects on the child’s mental health. This is important, especially among Latino families due to the salience of the mother-daughter relationship and its association with adolescents’ risk of mental illness and suicidal behaviors (Turner, Kaplan, Zayas & Ross, 2002). Examining 9-year old children’s impressions of their parental relationships is a critical time before the developmental milestone of individuation occurs. More research is needed utilizing longitudinal designs and multiple self-reports on how this critical time plays a role into early-to-mid adolescence when mental health diagnoses increase among children (Kessler et. al., 2007). Our study could encourage clinicians and community based upstream prevention programs to assess for familial closeness and communication patterns before children begin to present for mental health concerns in adolescence (Kellam et. al., 2008).

Our study is one of the first to include fathers on the longitudinal mechanisms of parental mental health and how this relates to their child’s level of connectedness. Mothers are often seen as the sole caretaker in families, often because they are more likely to bring their children to their social worker, physician other parent-teacher meetings. Our findings suggest a need to actively include fathers into their child’s treatment plans and other wellness visits as they played a significant role on their child’s appraisals of connectedness. Fathers are often incorrectly characterized as absent or displaying limited emotional mutuality with their children that potentially affects their child’s mental health outcomes (Yu et al., 2008). The influence fathers have on their emerging adolescent’s well-being invites further investigation (Author, 2012; Author, 2017).

Furthermore, we not only found that non-Hispanic families had chronic depressive symptoms, but that parents were simultaneously experiencing depressive characteristics. Households that include not only chronic but also concurrent parental depression could have deleterious effects on a family. Simultaneous depressive symptoms in families could be a sign of shared coping mechanisms and how these practices are passed down to their children. For example, a recent study found that mother’s and father’s attitudes and ability to transition to difficult circumstance, quality of the parent-child bond, and pro-social coping were successful indicators of predicting a child’s mental health (Palmer, 2008). Furthermore, as households that experience depression often also exhibit disruptions in parenting practices which can ultimately affect a child’s capacity to control their feelings and actions. These behaviors can then extend to internalized or externalizing behaviors when dealing with distress. This cyclical nature then continues as this can increase parent-child conflict and withdrawal and decreased connectedness (Burkem 2003; Cummings et al. 2001). As parental bonds in childhood are often the pre-cursor to mental health concerns in adolescence and into adulthood, our findings shed light on the need to understand upstream preventative efforts when children are younger. Although Wave 4 of the Fragile Families data was the first data point that included a child survey, they did not ask about the child’s mental health outcomes. The Fragile Families Study is currently collecting its next wave of data (Wave 5) and interviewing these children (age 15) and will be asking about a variety of biopsychosocial outcomes. Further research should examine what specific mechanisms in families experiencing chronic and/or simultaneous depressive symptoms are related to their adolescent child’s mental health currently and long term.

We found that Latino parents reported concerning patterns of depression that affected their communications with their children. It is widely documented that Latino families have more supports from extended family, which could facilitate stronger parent-child connection, thus buffering the negative effects from parental depression. Yet it is surprising that this did not seem to mediate the effects of the parent-child relationship. Given that Latino families experienced more episodic depression over the 9 years of the study, this might have affected communication and closeness differently but still as negatively as the non-Hispanic families given that all classes regardless of race/ethnicity had decreased levels of connection to their family members. The upheavals and then calmer periods in a child’s life with a parent experiencing depression might have created distance for the dyad in different ways. By a lack of consistency in the parent-child relationship, children might have appraised their relationship as less close due to ups-and-downs of their relationship.

Our models examining how the patterns of depressive symptoms were related to their child’s reported connectedness to mothers and fathers provide significant insights for mental health promotion efforts. But as with any self-report data collection study, the risk of social desirability bias related to mental health and parent-child connectedness in our study is likely still present. Furthermore, results from the Fragile Families data can be difficult to interpret as we were not able to account for other pregnancies during the 9-year period. As adding to an existing family is difficult in many ways, and can affect mental health status, there is always the potential for not accounting for other triggering episodes during the study. While the Fragile Families data is rich, the data is prospective and causal pathways are difficult to deduce. Finally, our study focused on biological parents. Future studies should investigate how residential fathers/mothers and also other adult family members (e.g. grandparents, parents romantic partner) residing in multi-generational homes factor into children’s perceived connectedness to other trusted adults.

While there are potential limitations to our work, we believe these are prevail over by its noteworthy strengths. First, the study not only recruited difficult to reach mothers in early pregnancy, but also engaged in intensive follow up from birth of their child to 9 years of age. This is unique to many studies engaging new mothers and fathers. We focused on family mechanisms are related to a child’s appraisal of their relationships with their mothers and fathers. Our findings create a foundation for further examination regarding developmentally appropriate connections and mental health outcomes. Another strength of our study is that mothers and fathers were questioned every two years, offering several chances to observe their mental health trajectories and offers stronger evidence than what we can gather from cross-sectional studies.

Our findings suggest the importance of examining upstream approaches to mental health promotion by observing precursors to patterns of family dysfunction that are related to more serious behavioral health outcomes during adolescence and even early adulthood. We also strongly contend that surveillance of family mental health is essential throughout the child’s life especially given the growing evidence of the impact parental mental health has on child health outcomes.

Longitudinal studies provide a wealth of information that is often essential to understand process-oriented change, including mental health and parent-child relationships. As our study demonstrated, this is of particular concern when working with underserved communities and underrepresented groups. Community-based approaches that integrate cultural resources into treatment may serve as one avenue to fill this gap and to engage in preventative efforts that approach the family as a whole early on. As the literature overwhelmingly suggests, the importance of trusted adults in children’s lives supports the need for universal prevention programs highlighting family bonds, especially for families experiencing mental health concerns.

Table 1.

Unweighted Sample Characteristics of Latino and non-Hispanic Parents

Latino Parents
(N=1,467)
Non-Hispanic Parents
(N=2,489)
Number Percent Number Percent
Was the mother born in the U.S.*
Yes 937 63.87% 2,292 92.09%
No 530 36.87% 192 7.71%
Missing 0 0.00% 5 0.20%
Mother’s Race*
White 529 36.06% 745 29.93%
African American 131 8.93% 1606 64.52%
American Indian 191 13.02% 12 0.48%
Others 538 36.67% 124 4.96%
Missing 78 5.32% 2 0.08%
Does the mother live with the child at child age 9*
Always or most of the time 965 65.78% 1810 72.72%
Sometimes 29 1.98% 96 3.86%
Rarely or never 16 1.09% 47 1.89%
Missing 457 31.15% 536 21.53%
Does the mother feel depressed/sad for more than 2 weeks in the past year at
Child age 1* 273 18.61% 476 19.12%
Child age 3* 361 24.61% 558 22.42%
Child age 5* 247 16.84% 503 20.21%
Child age 9* 274 18.68% 424 17.03%
Was the father born in the U.S.*
Yes 740 50.44% 2,288 91.92%
No 465 31.70% 198 7.96%
Missing 262 17.86% 3 0.12%
Father’s Race*
White 390 26.58% 694 27.88%
African American 474 32.31% 1652 66.37%
American Indian 118 8.04% 22 0.88%
Others 485 33.06% 117 4.70%
Missing 0 0.00% 4 0.16%
Does the father live with the child at child age 9*
Always or most of the time 473 32.24% 869 34.91%
Sometimes 182 12.41% 436 17.52%
None of the time 115 7.84% 309 12.41%
Missing 697 47.51% 875 35.15%
Does the father feel depressed/sad for more than 2 weeks in the past year at
Child age 1* 151 10.29% 284 11.41%
Child age 3* 256 17.45% 397 15.95%
Child age 5* 146 9.95% 297 11.93%
Child age 9* 141 9.61% 266 10.69%
Mean     Std. Dev     Mean     Std. Dev    
Mother’s age* 24.70 5.77 25.63 6.22
Father’s age* 26.89 6.47 28.38 7.53
Open in a new tab

Significance level:

*

p<.001

For categorical variables, two-tailed chi-square tests were conducted. For continuous variables, two-tailed independent sample t-tests were conducted

Table 3.

Model Classification Diagnostics and Response Probabilities in Latent Classes for Parental Depression among Latino and non-Hispanic Families

Latino Families (n=1,467)
Non-Hispanic Families (n=2,489)
Class-1 Class-2 Class-3 Class-4 Class-1 Class-2 Class-3 Class-4 Class-5 Class-6
Classification Diagnostics
πk
[95% C.I. of πk]		 0.21
[0.12, 0.31]		 0.18
[0.07, 0.29]		 0.07
[0.01, 0.13]		 0.54
[0.42, 0.67]		 0.11
[0.06, 0.15]		 0.06
[0.02, 0.10]		 0.05
[0.01, 0.13]		 0.02
[0.01, 0.07]		 0.73
[0.60, 0.81]		 0.03
[0.01, 0.06]
mcaPk 0.2 0.22 0.07 0.51 0.15 0.05 0.03 0.01 0.72 0.03
AvePPk 0.9 0.91 0.81 0.9 0.89 0.92 0.77 0.76 0.95 0.76
OCCk 32.47 44.32 62.14 7.38 63.3 172.63 62.44 145.53 6.89 101.7
Response Probabilities
Maternal Depression at Child Age 1 83.90% 18.90% 11.80% 0.00% 57.20% 23.50% 53.80% 100.00% 9.40% 0.00%
Maternal Depression at Child Age 3 51.90% 14.20% 100.00% 0.00% 68.80% 26.80% 40.60% 0.00% 9.60% 34.00%
Maternal Depression at Child Age 5 27.70% 28.90% 24.10% 4.90% 65.30% 0.10% 100.00% 100.00% 6.40% 38.50%
Maternal Depression at Child Age 9 41.40% 18.40% 100.00% 2.40% 83.80% 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% 9.80% 0.00%
Paternal Depression at Child Age 1 0.00% 20.30% 21.40% 2.20% 29.40% 93.70% 0.00% 1.60% 4.10% 6.10%
Paternal Depression at Child Age 3 0.00% 56.70% 50.10% 0.60% 32.90% 99.50% 0.00% 0.00% 4.00% 72.50%
Paternal Depression at Child Age 5 12.90% 34.30% 36.00% 0.00% 33.80% 35.80% 0.00% 100.00% 6.40% 97.40%
Paternal Depression at Child Age 9 0.00% 39.00% 7.80% 4.90% 29.90% 49.10% 0.00% 0.00% 4.80% 64.60%
Open in a new tab

Highlights.

  • This is the first study to understand young Latino adolescents’ self-reported closeness with both their mother and father and how this is associated with whether their parents have no depressive symptoms, episodic or chronic depressive symptoms.

  • Latino parents reported more depressive symptoms (46%) than non-Hispanic parents (27%) over 9 years.

  • Latinos were more likely to report episodic symptoms, while non-Hispanic parents were more likely to report chronic depression.

  • Regardless of race/ethnicity, parental depressive symptoms negatively affected their children’s reported quality of parent-child communication.

Acknowledgments

None

Funding:

This work was supported by the Funding: This work was supported by The Hogg Foundation for Mental Health [JRG-189], Austin, Texas.

Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes of Health under award numbers R01HD36916, R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Publisher's Disclaimer: This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

Contributors:

Susan De Luca was responsible for conceptualizing the study, writing the manuscript and interpreting the data. Yan Yueqi assisted with analyzing the results. Daley DiCorcia aided in the drafting of the manuscript. Yolanda Padilla provided feedback on the manuscript. I will be serving as the corresponding author for this manuscript. All the authors noted on the byline have agreed to the byline order and to submission of the manuscript in this form. I have assumed responsibility for keeping my coauthors informed of our progress through the editorial review process, the content of the reviews, and any revision made.

Contributor Information

Susan M. De Luca, School of Social Work & Population Research Center, University of Texas at Austin, 1925 San Jacinto Blvd, School of Social Work, Austin, Texas.

Yan Yueqi, Children and Family Futures

DiCorcia Daley, Stony Brook University, School of Social Welfare.

Yolanda Padilla, School of Social Work, University of Texas at Austin

References

  1. Aasheim V, Waldenström U, Hjelmstedt A, Rasmussen S, Pettersson H, Schytt E. Associations between advanced maternal age and psychological distress in primiparous women, from early pregnancy to 18 months postpartum. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2012;119(9):1108–1116. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2012.03411.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Addis ME. Gender and depression in men. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice. 2008;15(3):153–168. [Google Scholar]
  3. Alegría M, Mulvaney-Day N, Torres M, Polo A, Cao Z, Canino G. Prevalence of psychiatric disorders across Latino subgroups in the United States. American journal of public health. 2007;97(1):68–75. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2006.087205. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Asparouhov T. Sampling weights in latent variable modeling. Structural equation modeling. 2005;12(3):411–434. [Google Scholar]
  5. Asparouhov T, Muthen B. Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: A 3-step approach using Mplus. 2014 Retrieved from: https://www.statmodel.com/download/webnotes/webnote15.pdf.
  6. Beardslee WR, Versage EM, Gladstone TRG. Children of affectively ill parents: A review of the last 10 years. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 1998;37:1134–1141. doi: 10.1097/00004583-199811000-00012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Bendheim-Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing & Columbia Population Research Center. Scales documentation and question sources for the Nine-year wave of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study. 2013 Retrieved from http://www.fragilefamilies.princeton.edu/documentation/year9/ff_9yr_scales_2013.pdf.
  8. Bennett AC, Brewer KC, Rankin KM. The association of child mental health conditions and parent mental health status among US children, 2007. Maternal and Child Health Journal. 2012;16(6):1266–1275. doi: 10.1007/s10995-011-0888-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Blumberg SJ, Olson L, Frankel MR, Osborn L, Srinath KP, Giambo P. Design and operation of the National Survey of Children’s Health, 2003. Vital and health statistics Ser 1, Programs and collection procedures. 2005;(43):1–131. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Brown T. Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York: Guildford; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  11. Brown S, Lumley J. Physical health problems after childbirth and maternal depression at six to seven months postpartum. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynaecology. 2000;107(10):1194–1201. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.2000.tb11607.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Burkem L. The impact of maternal depression on familial relationships. International Review of Psychiatry. 2003;15(3):243–255. doi: 10.1080/0954026031000136866. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Carlson BL. Fragile families & child wellbeing study: Methodology for constructing mother, father, and couple weights for core telephone public survey data waves 1–4. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  14. Collins LM, Lanza ST. Multiple-Group Latent Class Analysis. Latent Class and Latent Transition Analysis: With Applications in the Social, Behavioral, and Health Sciences. 2010:111–148. [Google Scholar]
  15. Connell AM, Goodman SH. The association between psychopathology in fathers versus mothers and children’s internalizing and externalizing behavior problems: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin. 2002;128:746–773. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.746. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Corona R, Lefkowitz ES, Sigman M, Romo LF. Latino Adolescents’ Adjustment, Maternal Depressive Symptoms, and the Mother-Adolescent Relationship. Family Relations. 2005;54(3):386–399. [Google Scholar]
  17. Coyne JC. Depression and the response of others. Journal of Abnormal Psychology. 1976;85:186–193. doi: 10.1037//0021-843x.85.2.186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Crean HF. Conflict in the Latino parent-youth dyad: the role of emotional support from the opposite parent. Journal of Family Psychology. 2008;22(3):484. doi: 10.1037/0893-3200.22.3.484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Cummings EM, DeArth-Pendley G, DuRocher-Schudlich T, Smith DA. Parental depression and family functioning: Towards a process-oriented model of children’s adjustment. In: Beach SR, editor. Marital and family processes in depression: A scientific foundation for clinical practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 2001. pp. 89–110. [Google Scholar]
  20. Enders CK, Bandalos DL. The relative performance of full information maximum likelihood estimation for missing data in structural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal. 2001;8:430–457. [Google Scholar]
  21. Erlich MD, GAP Committee on Psychopathology Envisioning zero suicide. Psychiatric Services. 2016;67(3):255–255. doi: 10.1176/appi.ps.201500334. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Ertel KA, Rich-Edwards JW, Koenen KC. Maternal depression in the United States: Nationally representative rates and risks. Journal of Women’s Health (2002) 2011;20:169–1617. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2657. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Fletcher RJ, Feeman E, Garfield C, Vimpani G. The effects of early paternal depression on children’s development. Medical Journal of Australia. 2011;195:685–689. doi: 10.5694/mja11.10192. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Gil RM, Vazquez CI. The Maria paradox: How Latinas can merge old world traditions with new world self-esteem. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons; 1996. [Google Scholar]
  25. Goodman S, Gotlib I. Children of depressed parent Mechanisms of risk and implications for treatment. American Psychological Association; Washington, DC: 2002. [Google Scholar]
  26. Hawton K. Sex and suicide. Gender differences in suicidal behavior. The British Journal of Psychiatry: The Journal of Mental Science. 2000;177(6):484–485. doi: 10.1192/bjp.177.6.484. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Institute of Medicine. The future of the public’s health in the 21st century. 2002 Nov; Retrieved from https://www.nationalacademies.org/hmd/~/media/Files/Report%20Files/2002/The-Future-of-the-Publics-Health-in-the21stCentury/Future%20of%20Publics%20Health%202002%20Report%20Brief.pdf.
  28. Isacco A, Hofscher R, Molloy S. An examination of fathers’ mental health help seeking: A brief report. American Journal of Men’s Health. 2015;10(6):33–38. doi: 10.1177/1557988315581395. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kane P, Garber J. The relations among depression in fathers, children’s psychopathology, and father–child conflict: A meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology Review. 2004;24:339–360. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2004.03.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kelly UA. Symptoms of PTSD and major depression in Latinas who have experienced intimate partner violence. Issues in Mental Health Nursing. 2010;31(2):119–127. doi: 10.3109/01612840903312020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kessler RC, Amminger GP, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, Lee S, Üstün TB. Age of onset of mental disorders: A review of recent literature. Current Opinion in Psychiatry. 2007;20(4):359–364. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e32816ebc8c. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kessler RC, Andrews G, Mroczek D, Ustun B, Wittchen HU. The World Health organization composite international diagnostic interview short-form (cidi-sf) International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research. 1998;7(4):171–185. [Google Scholar]
  33. Kim S, Cardemil E. Effective psychotherapy with low-income clients: The importance of attending to social class. Journal of Contemporary Psychotherapy. 2012;42:27–37. doi: 10.1007/s10879-011-9194-0. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Klein DN, Lewinsohn PM, Rohde P, Seeley JR, Olino TM. Psychopathology in the adolescent and young adult offspring of a community sample of mothers and fathers with major depression. Psychological Medicine. 2005;35:353–365. doi: 10.1017/s0033291704003587. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  35. Latalova K, Kamaradova D, Prasko J. Perspectives on perceived stigma and self-stigma in adult male patients with depression. Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment. 2014;10:1399. doi: 10.2147/NDT.S54081. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Lewinsohn PM, Olino TM, Klein DN. Psychosocial impairment in offspring of depressed parents. Psychological Medicine. 2005;35:1493–1503. doi: 10.1017/S0033291705005350. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. MacArthur C, Lewis M, Knox EG. Health after childbirth. British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology. 1991;98(12):1193. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-0528.1991.tb15386.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  38. Mayberry ML, Espelage DL, Koenig B. Multilevel modeling of direct effects and interactions of peers, parents, school, and community influences on adolescent substance use. Journal of Youth and Adolescence. 2009;38(8):1038–1049. doi: 10.1007/s10964-009-9425-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Masyn K. Latent class analysis and finite mixture modeling. In: Little TD, editor. The Oxford handbook of quantitative methods in psychology. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2013. pp. 551–611. [Google Scholar]
  40. Montazer S, Wheaton B. The impact of generation and country of origin on the mental health of children of immigrants. Journal of Health and Social Behavior. 2011;52(1):23–42. doi: 10.1177/002214651039502. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  41. Muthén LK, Muthén BO. Mplus User’s Guide: Statistical Analysis with Latent Variables: User’s Guide. Muthén & Muthén; 1998–2016. [Google Scholar]
  42. Muthen B. Imputation with latent class analysis. 2010 Retrieved from: http://www.statmodel.com/discussion/messages/22/5666.html?1487264971.
  43. National Institute of Mental Helath. Applied Research towards Zero Suicide Healthcare Systems. 2015 Retrieved on October 7, 2017 from https://www.nimh.nih.gov/funding/grant-writing-and-application-process/concept-clearances/2015/applied-research-towards-zero-suicide-healthcare-systems.shtml.
  44. Najman JM, Andersen MJ, Bor W, O’Callaghan MJ, Williams GM. Postnatal depression – myth and reality: Maternal depression before and after the birth of a child. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology. 2000;35(1):19–27. doi: 10.1007/s001270050004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Nylund K, Bellmore A, Nishina A, Graham S. Subtypes, severity, and structural stability of peer victimization: What does latent class analysis say? Child Development. 2007;78(6):1706–1722. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01097.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. O’Donnell L, O’Donnell C, Wardlaw D, Stueve A. Risk and resiliency factors influencing suicidality among urban African American and Latino youth. American Journal of Community Psychology. 2004;31:37–49. doi: 10.1023/b:ajcp.0000014317.20704.0b. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Palmer C. A theory of risk and resilience factors in military families. Military Psychology. 2008;20:205–217. [Google Scholar]
  48. Parke RD, Coltrane S, Duffy S, Buriel R, Dennis J, Powers J, French S, Widaman KF. Economic stress, parenting, and child adjustment in Mexican American and European families. Child Development. 2004;75:1632–1656. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00807.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  49. Patten SB. Performance of the Composite International Diagnostic Interview Short Form for major depression in community and clinical samples. Chronic Diseases and Injuries in Canada. 1997;18(3):109. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Prado G, Szapocznik J, Maldonado-Molina MM, Schwartz SJ, Pantin H. Drug use/abuse prevalence, etiology, prevention, and treatment in Hispanic adolescents: A cultural perspective. Journal of Drug Issues. 2008;38(1):5–36. [Google Scholar]
  51. Pratt LA, Brody DJ. NCHS data brief, no 172. Hyattsville, MD: National Center for Health Statistics; 2014. Depression in the U.S. household population, 2009–2012. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  52. Proulx CM, Helms HM, Buehler C. Marital quality and personal well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family. 2007;69(3):576–593. [Google Scholar]
  53. Ramchandani P, Stein A, Evans J, O’Connor TG. Paternal depression in the postnatal period and child development: A prospective population study. Lancet. 2005;365:2201–2205. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66778-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  54. Ramchandani P, Stein A, O’Connor TG, Heron J, Murray L, Evans J. Depression in men in the postnatal period and. 2008 doi: 10.1097/CHI.0b013e31816429c2. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Reichman NE, Teitler JO, Garfinkel I, McLanahan SS. Fragile families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review. 2001;23(4):303–326. [Google Scholar]
  56. Rohde P, Lewinsohn PM, Klein DN, Seeley JR. Association of parental depression with psychiatric course from adolescence to young adulthood among formerly depressed individuals. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology. 2005;114:409–420. doi: 10.1037/0021-843X.114.3.409. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  57. Shafer K, Fielding B, Wendt D. Similarities and differences in the influence of paternal and maternal depression on adolescent well-being. Social Work Research. 2017;41(2):85–96. [Google Scholar]
  58. Snowden LR, Yamada AM. Cultural differences in access to care. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology. 2005;1:143–166. doi: 10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.1.102803.143846. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  59. Swami V. Mental health literacy of depression: gender differences and attitudinal antecedents in a representative British sample. PloS one. 2012;7(11):e49779. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049779. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Torres J, Solberg V, Carlstrom A. The myth of sameness among Latino men and their machismo. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 2002;72:163–181. doi: 10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.163. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  61. Turner SG, Kaplan CP, Zayas L, Ross RE. Suicide attempts by adolescent Latinas: An exploratory study of individual and family correlates. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal. 2002;19(5):357–374. [Google Scholar]
  62. Turney K. Pathways of disadvantage: Explaining the relationship between maternal depression and children’s problem behaviors. Social Science Research. 2012;41(6):1546. doi: 10.1016/j.ssresearch.2012.06.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  63. US Department of Health and Human Services. Mental health: Culture, race, and ethnicity—a supplement to mental health: A report of the Surgeon General. Rockville, MD: 2001. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  64. Valdez CR, Abegglen J, Hauser CT. Fortalezas Familiares Program: Building sociocultural and family strengths in Latina women with depression and their families. Family Process. 2013;52(3):378–393. doi: 10.1111/famp.12008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  65. Viruell-Fuentes EA. Beyond acculturation: Immigration, discrimination, and health research among Mexicans in the united states. Social Science & Medicine. 2007;65(7):1524–1535. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  66. Wang L, Wu T, Anderson JL, Florence JE. Prevalence and risk factors of maternal depression during the first three years of child rearing. Journal of Women’s Health. 2011;20(5):711–718. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2010.2232. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  67. Weissman MM, Wickramaratne P, Nomura Y, Warner V, Pilowsky D, Verdeli H. Offspring of depressed parents: 20 years later. American Journal of Psychiatry. 2006;163:1001–1008. doi: 10.1176/ajp.2006.163.6.1001. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  68. Wheeler LA, Updegraff KA, Crouter A. Work and Mexican American parent-adolescent relationships: The mediating role of parent well-being. Journal of Family Psychology. 2011;25:107–116. doi: 10.1037/a0022440. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  69. Whisman MA. Marital adjustment and outcome following treatments for depression. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 2001;69(1):125–129. doi: 10.1037//0022-006x.69.1.125. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  70. Whitlock J, Wyman PA, Moore SR. Connectedness and suicide prevention in adolescents: Pathways and implications. Suicide and life-threatening behavior. 2014;44(3):246–272. doi: 10.1111/sltb.12071. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  71. Wilson S, Durbin CE. Effects of paternal depression on fathers’ parenting behaviors: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review. 2010;30(2):167–180. doi: 10.1016/j.cpr.2009.10.007. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  72. Woolhouse H, Gartland D, Mensah F, Brown SJ. Maternal depression from early pregnancy to 4 years postpartum in a prospective pregnancy cohort study: Implications for primary health care. BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2015;122(3):312–321. doi: 10.1111/1471-0528.12837. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  73. Woolhouse H, McDonald E, Brown S. Women’s experiences of sex and intimacy after childbirth: Making the adjustment to motherhood. Journal of Psychosomatic Obstetrics & Gynecology. 2012;33(4):185–190. doi: 10.3109/0167482X.2012.720314. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES