基于认知立场、依恋维度和童年创伤来识别个体亚群:一项潜在剖面分析。

IF 3.7 2区 医学 Q1 PSYCHIATRY
Journal of psychiatric research Pub Date : 2025-01-01 Epub Date: 2024-12-22 DOI:10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.12.033
H Delamain, R Saunders, M Tanzer, P Luyten, P Fonagy, C Campbell
{"title":"基于认知立场、依恋维度和童年创伤来识别个体亚群:一项潜在剖面分析。","authors":"H Delamain, R Saunders, M Tanzer, P Luyten, P Fonagy, C Campbell","doi":"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.12.033","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The present study examines the interplay between epistemic stance, attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma in relation to specific demographic factors and mental health outcomes. This study aims to understand how these factors form distinct profiles among individuals, to identify those at risk of mental health concerns.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was employed on a dataset from the general population (n = 500) to identify subgroups of individuals based on their epistemic stance (mistrust and credulity), attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma. Group comparison tests examined differences in sociodemographic variables across the profiles, whilst linear regression analyses investigated between-profile variations in mental health and wellbeing measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The LPA revealed a four-profile solution as the most suitable fit for the data. The latent profiles were characterised as follows: LP1 (14% of the sample; high levels of mistrust and low scores on all other measures), LP2 (62% of the sample; average scores on all measures), LP3 (15% of the sample; highest scores on all measures), and LP4 (9% of the sample; lowest scores on all measures). Between-profile significant differences were found for relationship status and education levels. Linear regression analyses demonstrated variations across the profiles for mental health symptoms and wellbeing measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified four distinct profiles with specific combinations of epistemic stance, attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma. These profiles were associated with differing levels of mental health symptom severity and wellbeing, suggesting their potential utility in informing preventive strategies targeting individuals at highest risk of negative outcomes.</p>","PeriodicalId":16868,"journal":{"name":"Journal of psychiatric research","volume":"181 ","pages":"701-708"},"PeriodicalIF":3.7000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Identifying subgroups of individuals based on their epistemic stance, attachment dimensions and childhood trauma: A latent profile analysis.\",\"authors\":\"H Delamain, R Saunders, M Tanzer, P Luyten, P Fonagy, C Campbell\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.12.033\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The present study examines the interplay between epistemic stance, attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma in relation to specific demographic factors and mental health outcomes. This study aims to understand how these factors form distinct profiles among individuals, to identify those at risk of mental health concerns.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was employed on a dataset from the general population (n = 500) to identify subgroups of individuals based on their epistemic stance (mistrust and credulity), attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma. Group comparison tests examined differences in sociodemographic variables across the profiles, whilst linear regression analyses investigated between-profile variations in mental health and wellbeing measures.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The LPA revealed a four-profile solution as the most suitable fit for the data. The latent profiles were characterised as follows: LP1 (14% of the sample; high levels of mistrust and low scores on all other measures), LP2 (62% of the sample; average scores on all measures), LP3 (15% of the sample; highest scores on all measures), and LP4 (9% of the sample; lowest scores on all measures). Between-profile significant differences were found for relationship status and education levels. Linear regression analyses demonstrated variations across the profiles for mental health symptoms and wellbeing measures.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study identified four distinct profiles with specific combinations of epistemic stance, attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma. These profiles were associated with differing levels of mental health symptom severity and wellbeing, suggesting their potential utility in informing preventive strategies targeting individuals at highest risk of negative outcomes.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16868,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"volume\":\"181 \",\"pages\":\"701-708\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.7000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of psychiatric research\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.12.033\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/12/22 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHIATRY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of psychiatric research","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychires.2024.12.033","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/12/22 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHIATRY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究考察了认知立场、依恋维度和儿童创伤与特定人口因素和心理健康结果之间的相互作用。这项研究旨在了解这些因素如何在个体中形成不同的特征,以识别那些有心理健康问题风险的人。方法:对来自一般人群(n = 500)的数据集进行潜在特征分析(LPA),根据他们的认知立场(不信任和轻信)、依恋维度和童年创伤来确定个体的子群体。组比较测试检查了不同概况中社会人口变量的差异,而线性回归分析调查了心理健康和幸福指标的不同概况之间的差异。结果:LPA显示了最适合数据的四剖面解决方案。潜在谱的特征如下:LP1(占样本的14%;高水平的不信任和低得分在所有其他措施),LP2(62%的样本;LP3(占样本的15%;在所有测量中得分最高),LP4(占样本的9%;所有指标得分最低)。两性关系状况和受教育程度存在显著差异。线性回归分析显示了心理健康症状和幸福指标的不同。结论:本研究确定了认知立场、依恋维度和童年创伤的具体组合的四种不同的概况。这些概况与不同程度的心理健康症状严重程度和幸福感有关,表明它们在告知针对负面结果风险最高的个体的预防策略方面具有潜在的效用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Identifying subgroups of individuals based on their epistemic stance, attachment dimensions and childhood trauma: A latent profile analysis.

Background: The present study examines the interplay between epistemic stance, attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma in relation to specific demographic factors and mental health outcomes. This study aims to understand how these factors form distinct profiles among individuals, to identify those at risk of mental health concerns.

Method: Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) was employed on a dataset from the general population (n = 500) to identify subgroups of individuals based on their epistemic stance (mistrust and credulity), attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma. Group comparison tests examined differences in sociodemographic variables across the profiles, whilst linear regression analyses investigated between-profile variations in mental health and wellbeing measures.

Results: The LPA revealed a four-profile solution as the most suitable fit for the data. The latent profiles were characterised as follows: LP1 (14% of the sample; high levels of mistrust and low scores on all other measures), LP2 (62% of the sample; average scores on all measures), LP3 (15% of the sample; highest scores on all measures), and LP4 (9% of the sample; lowest scores on all measures). Between-profile significant differences were found for relationship status and education levels. Linear regression analyses demonstrated variations across the profiles for mental health symptoms and wellbeing measures.

Conclusions: This study identified four distinct profiles with specific combinations of epistemic stance, attachment dimensions, and childhood trauma. These profiles were associated with differing levels of mental health symptom severity and wellbeing, suggesting their potential utility in informing preventive strategies targeting individuals at highest risk of negative outcomes.

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
Journal of psychiatric research
Journal of psychiatric research 医学-精神病学
CiteScore
7.30
自引率
2.10%
发文量
622
审稿时长
130 days
期刊介绍: Founded in 1961 to report on the latest work in psychiatry and cognate disciplines, the Journal of Psychiatric Research is dedicated to innovative and timely studies of four important areas of research: (1) clinical studies of all disciplines relating to psychiatric illness, as well as normal human behaviour, including biochemical, physiological, genetic, environmental, social, psychological and epidemiological factors; (2) basic studies pertaining to psychiatry in such fields as neuropsychopharmacology, neuroendocrinology, electrophysiology, genetics, experimental psychology and epidemiology; (3) the growing application of clinical laboratory techniques in psychiatry, including imagery and spectroscopy of the brain, molecular biology and computer sciences;
×
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