轻度脑外伤患者 "过去的美好时光 "偏见的心理相关性。

IF 1.8 4区 心理学 Q3 CLINICAL NEUROLOGY
Daniel L Schlehofer, Julie A Suhr
{"title":"轻度脑外伤患者 \"过去的美好时光 \"偏见的心理相关性。","authors":"Daniel L Schlehofer, Julie A Suhr","doi":"10.1080/13803395.2024.2426622","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Non-neurological factors such as the \"expectation as etiology\" or the \"good old days\" bias (EE/GOD bias) may partially explain persistent symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). What is less clear from existing research is the degree to which EE/GOD bias is related to other psychological correlates of persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS). We examined whether the EE/GOD bias was related to illness perception beliefs, intolerance of uncertainty, suggestibility, and domain identification. Participants with MTBI history and without (controls) reported frequency and severity of current PPCS; the MTBI group additionally reported premorbid PPCS. Participants also completed measures of psychological factors potentially associated with PPCS. Consistent with previous studies of the EE/GOD bias, the MTBI group endorsed less premorbid PPCS than current PPCS and when compared to the current symptom report of the control group. The MTBI group also endorsed more current PPCS than the control group. Higher EE/GOD bias was associated with several aspects of illness identity, including belief that symptoms would be more chronic, greater illness-related psychological distress, and greater cogniphobia. Higher EE/GOD bias was also related to higher intolerance of uncertainty and stronger personal identification with memory abilities. Regression showed that perceived symptom timeline, cogniphobia, and domain identification were unique predictors of EE/GOD bias. Findings confirm that the EE/GOD bias is seen in individuals with self-reported history of MTBI and corresponds to other psychological processes that potentially explain ongoing MTBI symptoms, providing greater insight into the potential mechanisms of PPCS. Future studies should examine the EE/GOD bias and associated psychological correlates in a clinical population and also assess for potential neuropsychological correlates. Findings suggest that psychological factors and premorbid symptom report should be considered in clinical assessment and also suggest potential mechanisms of treatment of individuals with acute MTBI or prolonged MTBI symptoms.</p>","PeriodicalId":15382,"journal":{"name":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Psychological correlates of the good old days bias in mild traumatic brain injury.\",\"authors\":\"Daniel L Schlehofer, Julie A Suhr\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13803395.2024.2426622\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Non-neurological factors such as the \\\"expectation as etiology\\\" or the \\\"good old days\\\" bias (EE/GOD bias) may partially explain persistent symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). What is less clear from existing research is the degree to which EE/GOD bias is related to other psychological correlates of persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS). We examined whether the EE/GOD bias was related to illness perception beliefs, intolerance of uncertainty, suggestibility, and domain identification. Participants with MTBI history and without (controls) reported frequency and severity of current PPCS; the MTBI group additionally reported premorbid PPCS. Participants also completed measures of psychological factors potentially associated with PPCS. Consistent with previous studies of the EE/GOD bias, the MTBI group endorsed less premorbid PPCS than current PPCS and when compared to the current symptom report of the control group. The MTBI group also endorsed more current PPCS than the control group. Higher EE/GOD bias was associated with several aspects of illness identity, including belief that symptoms would be more chronic, greater illness-related psychological distress, and greater cogniphobia. Higher EE/GOD bias was also related to higher intolerance of uncertainty and stronger personal identification with memory abilities. Regression showed that perceived symptom timeline, cogniphobia, and domain identification were unique predictors of EE/GOD bias. Findings confirm that the EE/GOD bias is seen in individuals with self-reported history of MTBI and corresponds to other psychological processes that potentially explain ongoing MTBI symptoms, providing greater insight into the potential mechanisms of PPCS. Future studies should examine the EE/GOD bias and associated psychological correlates in a clinical population and also assess for potential neuropsychological correlates. Findings suggest that psychological factors and premorbid symptom report should be considered in clinical assessment and also suggest potential mechanisms of treatment of individuals with acute MTBI or prolonged MTBI symptoms.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":15382,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2426622\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of clinical and experimental neuropsychology","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13803395.2024.2426622","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"CLINICAL NEUROLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

非神经学因素,如 "期望作为病因 "或 "过去的美好时光 "偏差(EE/GOD 偏差),可以部分解释轻度脑外伤(MTBI)后的持续症状。现有研究不太清楚的是,EE/GOD 偏差在多大程度上与持续性脑震荡后症状(PPCS)的其他心理相关因素有关。我们研究了 EE/GOD 偏差是否与疾病感知信念、不确定性不容忍、暗示性和领域识别有关。有 MTBI 史和无 MTBI 史的参与者(对照组)报告了当前 PPCS 的频率和严重程度;MTBI 组还报告了病前 PPCS。参与者还完成了可能与 PPCS 相关的心理因素的测量。与之前的 EE/GOD 偏差研究一致,MTBI 组认可的病前 PPCS 比当前 PPCS 少,与对照组的当前症状报告相比也是如此。与对照组相比,MTBI 组对当前 PPCS 的认可度也更高。较高的 EE/GOD 偏差与疾病认同的几个方面有关,包括认为症状会更加慢性化、与疾病相关的心理压力更大以及认知恐惧症更严重。较高的 EE/GOD 偏差还与较高的不确定性不容忍度和较强的个人记忆能力认同有关。回归结果显示,感知症状时间表、认知恐惧症和领域认同是预测 EE/GOD 偏差的独特因素。研究结果证实,EE/GOD偏差出现在自述有MTBI病史的人身上,并与其他可能解释持续MTBI症状的心理过程相对应,从而为PPCS的潜在机制提供了更深入的见解。未来的研究应在临床人群中检验 EE/GOD 偏差和相关的心理相关因素,并评估潜在的神经心理学相关因素。研究结果表明,在临床评估中应考虑心理因素和病前症状报告,并提出了治疗急性 MTBI 或长期 MTBI 症状患者的潜在机制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Psychological correlates of the good old days bias in mild traumatic brain injury.

Non-neurological factors such as the "expectation as etiology" or the "good old days" bias (EE/GOD bias) may partially explain persistent symptoms following mild traumatic brain injury (MTBI). What is less clear from existing research is the degree to which EE/GOD bias is related to other psychological correlates of persistent post-concussive symptoms (PPCS). We examined whether the EE/GOD bias was related to illness perception beliefs, intolerance of uncertainty, suggestibility, and domain identification. Participants with MTBI history and without (controls) reported frequency and severity of current PPCS; the MTBI group additionally reported premorbid PPCS. Participants also completed measures of psychological factors potentially associated with PPCS. Consistent with previous studies of the EE/GOD bias, the MTBI group endorsed less premorbid PPCS than current PPCS and when compared to the current symptom report of the control group. The MTBI group also endorsed more current PPCS than the control group. Higher EE/GOD bias was associated with several aspects of illness identity, including belief that symptoms would be more chronic, greater illness-related psychological distress, and greater cogniphobia. Higher EE/GOD bias was also related to higher intolerance of uncertainty and stronger personal identification with memory abilities. Regression showed that perceived symptom timeline, cogniphobia, and domain identification were unique predictors of EE/GOD bias. Findings confirm that the EE/GOD bias is seen in individuals with self-reported history of MTBI and corresponds to other psychological processes that potentially explain ongoing MTBI symptoms, providing greater insight into the potential mechanisms of PPCS. Future studies should examine the EE/GOD bias and associated psychological correlates in a clinical population and also assess for potential neuropsychological correlates. Findings suggest that psychological factors and premorbid symptom report should be considered in clinical assessment and also suggest potential mechanisms of treatment of individuals with acute MTBI or prolonged MTBI symptoms.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.20
自引率
4.50%
发文量
52
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology ( JCEN) publishes research on the neuropsychological consequences of brain disease, disorders, and dysfunction, and aims to promote the integration of theories, methods, and research findings in clinical and experimental neuropsychology. The primary emphasis of JCEN is to publish original empirical research pertaining to brain-behavior relationships and neuropsychological manifestations of brain disease. Theoretical and methodological papers, critical reviews of content areas, and theoretically-relevant case studies are also welcome.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信