Exploring the relationship between cognition and mental health in intersex participants in the UK Biobank study.

IF 3 3区心理学 Q2 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY

Clinical Neuropsychologist Pub Date : 2024-10-15 DOI:10.1080/13854046.2024.2414478

Andrew E Reineberg, Kristen L Eckstrand, Jason D Flatt

{"title":"Exploring the relationship between cognition and mental health in intersex participants in the UK Biobank study.","authors":"Andrew E Reineberg, Kristen L Eckstrand, Jason D Flatt","doi":"10.1080/13854046.2024.2414478","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Objective: The physical and mental health of intersex individuals is woefully understudied. A recent survey of intersex individuals found high rates of self-reported cognitive issues such as difficulty remembering and concentrating as well as high rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Method: The current study explores whether cognitive differences are observed between 353 intersex and over 400,000 non-intersex people using a latent model of cognitive tasks derived from measures in the UK (United Kingdom) Biobank study. Results: There were no differences in intelligence between intersex people and non-intersex people. We found significantly lower executive function and processing speed in intersex individuals versus non-intersex individuals. However, after accounting for mental health differences via regression and case-control matching, there were no significant differences in executive function or processing speed between intersex individuals and non-intersex individuals. Conclusion: Mental health differences between intersex and non-intersex individuals may account for differences in cognitive factor scores.","PeriodicalId":55250,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-15","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Neuropsychologist","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13854046.2024.2414478","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective: The physical and mental health of intersex individuals is woefully understudied. A recent survey of intersex individuals found high rates of self-reported cognitive issues such as difficulty remembering and concentrating as well as high rates of mental health issues, such as depression and anxiety. Method: The current study explores whether cognitive differences are observed between 353 intersex and over 400,000 non-intersex people using a latent model of cognitive tasks derived from measures in the UK (United Kingdom) Biobank study. Results: There were no differences in intelligence between intersex people and non-intersex people. We found significantly lower executive function and processing speed in intersex individuals versus non-intersex individuals. However, after accounting for mental health differences via regression and case-control matching, there were no significant differences in executive function or processing speed between intersex individuals and non-intersex individuals. Conclusion: Mental health differences between intersex and non-intersex individuals may account for differences in cognitive factor scores.

查看原文本刊更多论文

探索英国生物库研究中双性人参与者的认知与心理健康之间的关系。

目的：对双性人身心健康的研究远远不够。最近一项针对双性人的调查发现，双性人自我报告的认知问题（如记忆力和注意力不集中）以及心理健康问题（如抑郁和焦虑）的比例很高。研究方法本研究利用从英国生物库研究中得出的认知任务潜模型，探讨了 353 名双性人和 40 多万名非双性人之间是否存在认知差异。结果显示双性人和非双性人的智力没有差异。我们发现，双性人的执行功能和处理速度明显低于非双性人。然而，在通过回归和病例对照匹配考虑了心理健康差异后，双性人与非双性人在执行功能或处理速度方面没有明显差异。结论双性人和非双性人之间的心理健康差异可能是认知因子得分差异的原因。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Clinical Neuropsychologist 医学-临床神经学

CiteScore

8.40

自引率

12.80%

发文量

审稿时长

6-12 weeks

期刊介绍： The Clinical Neuropsychologist (TCN) serves as the premier forum for (1) state-of-the-art clinically-relevant scientific research, (2) in-depth professional discussions of matters germane to evidence-based practice, and (3) clinical case studies in neuropsychology. Of particular interest are papers that can make definitive statements about a given topic (thereby having implications for the standards of clinical practice) and those with the potential to expand today’s clinical frontiers. Research on all age groups, and on both clinical and normal populations, is considered.