评估幸福感和痛苦

C. Rafanelli, Seung K. Park, C. Ruini, F. Ottolini, M. Cazzaro, G. Fava
{"title":"评估幸福感和痛苦","authors":"C. Rafanelli, Seung K. Park, C. Ruini, F. Ottolini, M. Cazzaro, G. Fava","doi":"10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(200001)16:1<55::AID-SMI832>3.0.CO;2-M","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"There is insufficient research on rating psychological well-being and distress in clinical populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differential characteristics of instruments assessing well-being and distress in 20 remitted patients with affective (mood and anxiety) disorders and 20 healthy control subjects matched for sociodemographic variables. Remitted patients displayed significantly higher levels of psychological distress—as measured by Paykel's Clinical Interview for Depression (CID), Van Praag's Scale for Personality Disturbances and Kellner's Symptom Questionnaire (SQ)—and significantly less well-being—as measured by Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-Being (PWB) and the SQ—than control subjects. The correlations between scales of psychological distress and well-being were found to be complex in both patients and controls. Psychotherapeutic treatment of residual symptomatology in patients disclosed a differential sensitivity of the scales to changes. The results thus suggest that well-being cannot be equated to lack of distress (as implicitly endorsed by current psychiatric paradigms), and the need for a multidimensional assessment in stress medicine. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.","PeriodicalId":82818,"journal":{"name":"Stress medicine","volume":"159 2","pages":"55-61"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2000-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"116","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Rating well-being and distress\",\"authors\":\"C. Rafanelli, Seung K. Park, C. Ruini, F. Ottolini, M. Cazzaro, G. Fava\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(200001)16:1<55::AID-SMI832>3.0.CO;2-M\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"There is insufficient research on rating psychological well-being and distress in clinical populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differential characteristics of instruments assessing well-being and distress in 20 remitted patients with affective (mood and anxiety) disorders and 20 healthy control subjects matched for sociodemographic variables. Remitted patients displayed significantly higher levels of psychological distress—as measured by Paykel's Clinical Interview for Depression (CID), Van Praag's Scale for Personality Disturbances and Kellner's Symptom Questionnaire (SQ)—and significantly less well-being—as measured by Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-Being (PWB) and the SQ—than control subjects. The correlations between scales of psychological distress and well-being were found to be complex in both patients and controls. Psychotherapeutic treatment of residual symptomatology in patients disclosed a differential sensitivity of the scales to changes. The results thus suggest that well-being cannot be equated to lack of distress (as implicitly endorsed by current psychiatric paradigms), and the need for a multidimensional assessment in stress medicine. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.\",\"PeriodicalId\":82818,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Stress medicine\",\"volume\":\"159 2\",\"pages\":\"55-61\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2000-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"116\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Stress medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(200001)16:1<55::AID-SMI832>3.0.CO;2-M\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Stress medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1700(200001)16:1<55::AID-SMI832>3.0.CO;2-M","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 116

摘要

在临床人群中对心理健康和痛苦进行评级的研究不足。本研究的目的是评估20名情感(情绪和焦虑)障碍缓解患者和20名符合社会人口学变量的健康对照受试者的幸福感和痛苦评估工具的差异特征。缓解期患者表现出明显高于对照组的心理困扰水平(通过Paykel的临床抑郁访谈(CID), Van Praag的人格障碍量表和Kellner的症状问卷(SQ)来测量),以及明显低于对照组的幸福感(通过Ryff的心理健康量表(PWB)和SQ来测量)。在患者和对照组中,心理困扰和幸福感量表之间的相关性都很复杂。患者残留症状的心理治疗揭示了对变化的不同敏感性。因此,结果表明,幸福不能等同于没有痛苦(正如当前精神病学范式所隐含的那样),并且需要在压力医学中进行多维评估。版权所有©2000约翰威利父子有限公司
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Rating well-being and distress
There is insufficient research on rating psychological well-being and distress in clinical populations. The aim of this study was to evaluate the differential characteristics of instruments assessing well-being and distress in 20 remitted patients with affective (mood and anxiety) disorders and 20 healthy control subjects matched for sociodemographic variables. Remitted patients displayed significantly higher levels of psychological distress—as measured by Paykel's Clinical Interview for Depression (CID), Van Praag's Scale for Personality Disturbances and Kellner's Symptom Questionnaire (SQ)—and significantly less well-being—as measured by Ryff's Scales of Psychological Well-Being (PWB) and the SQ—than control subjects. The correlations between scales of psychological distress and well-being were found to be complex in both patients and controls. Psychotherapeutic treatment of residual symptomatology in patients disclosed a differential sensitivity of the scales to changes. The results thus suggest that well-being cannot be equated to lack of distress (as implicitly endorsed by current psychiatric paradigms), and the need for a multidimensional assessment in stress medicine. Copyright © 2000 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信