躯体症状障碍患者认知情绪调节与临床症状的相关性研究
The Relevant Research between Cognitive Emotion Regulation and Clinical Symptoms about the Patients with Physical Symptoms Related Disorders
DOI: 10.12677/AP.2017.77117, PDF, HTML, XML, 下载: 1,348  浏览: 1,726  科研立项经费支持
作者: 刘竹华, 郭爱宁, 王 媛:宁夏医科大学总医院心理卫生中心,宁夏 银川
关键词: 认知情绪调节抑郁焦虑躯体化症状Cognitive Emotion Regulation Depression Anxiety Somatic Symptoms
摘要: 目的:研究躯体症状障碍患者认知情绪调节与抑郁、焦虑、躯体化症状的关系。方法:应用认知情绪调节问卷(CERQ-C)、抑郁自评量表(SDS)、焦虑自评量表(SAS)、症状自评量表(SCL-90)对160例躯体症状障碍患者进行测评,运用Pearson相关分析、多元线性回归分析,分析躯体症状障碍患者认知情绪调节与抑郁、焦虑、躯体化症状的相关性。结果:积极认知情绪调节平均(54.24 ± 9.91分),消极认知情绪调节平均(45.31 ± 6.93分),抑郁得分平均(44.32 ± 9.31分),焦虑得分平均(38.43 ± 6.82分)。接受、积极重新评价、理性分析、灾难化、责难他人的调节策略在不同抑郁状态躯体症状障碍患者中的应用情况具有明显的差异(p < 0.01),接受、积极重新评价、理性分析、灾难化、责难他人的调节策略在不同焦虑状态躯体症状障碍患者中的应用情况具有明显的差异(p < 0.01),线性回归分析表明认知情绪调节各分量表分别可以解释抑郁总变异量的69.2%、焦虑总变异量的54.4%、躯体化症状总变异量的43.4%。自我责难、积极重新关注、积极重新评价、理性分析、灾难化是能够预测抑郁的主要变量;自我责难、接受、沉思、积极重新关注、积极关注计划、积极重新评价、理性分析、灾难化是能够预测焦虑的主要变量。结论:躯体症状障碍患者情绪调节与抑郁、焦虑、躯体化症状有密切联系,其中自我责难、积极重新评价、灾难化为抑郁、焦虑、躯体化症状共有的主要预测指标。本研究为进一步探讨躯体症状障碍患者的抑郁、焦虑、躯体化症状的形成提供了一定的依据。
Abstract: Objective: To research the relationship between cognitive emotion regulation and depression, anxiety and somatization symptom about the patients with somatic disorders. Methods: Applied cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire, self-rating depression Scale, self-rating anxiety scale and self-reporting inventory have an evaluation to 160 cases of patients with somatic disorders, using Pearson correlation analysis and multiple linear regression analysis to analyze the relationship between cognitive emotion regulation and depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms in patients with physical disorders. Results: Positive cognitive emotion regulation is average (54.24 + 9.91 points); negative cognitive emotion regulation is average (45.31 + 6.93 points); depression score is average (44.32 + 9.31 points). Anxiety score is average (38.43 + 6.82). Acceptance, positive re evaluation, rational analysis, disaster and blame others for the adjustment strategy in the application of different forms of depression in patients with somatic disorders have obvious differences. Self-blame, Acceptance, contemplation, re-attention, re-focus on planning, positive re-evaluation, rational analysis, disaster and blame others for the adjustment strategy in the application of different forms of Anxiety in patients with somatic disorders have obvious differences. Linear regression analysis showed that each component table of Cognitive emotion regulation can explain 69.2% of Total variance of depression, 54.4% of Total variance of anxiety, 5.5% of Total variation of somatic symptoms. Self blame, positive re-attention, positive re-evaluation, rational analysis and disaster are able to predict the main variables of depression. Self blame, acceptance, contemplation, positive re-attention, re- focus on planning, positive re-evaluation, rational analysis, disaster are able to predict the main va-riables of anxiety. Conclusion: There was a close relationship between Emotion regulation in pa-tients with somatic disorders and depression, anxiety and Somatic symptoms. Self blame, positive re-evaluation and disaster were respectively the main predictors of depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms. This research is for further discussions about the formation of depression, anxiety and somatic symptoms in patients with somatic disorders to provide a certain basis.
文章引用:刘竹华, 郭爱宁, 王媛 (2017). 躯体症状障碍患者认知情绪调节与临床症状的相关性研究. 心理学进展, 7(7), 931-938. https://doi.org/10.12677/AP.2017.77117

参考文献

[1] 丁魁, 孟新珍, 刘晓明(2016). 新疆官兵心理应激, 情绪调节方式与职业倦怠关系研究. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 25(3), 271-275.
[2] 贾惠侨, 陈海燕, 姚树桥(2013). 中学生认知情绪调节策略对焦虑的预测作用. 中国健康心理学杂志, 21(7), 1056- 1058.
[3] 孔伶俐, 闫珉, 常桂花(2015). 躯体形式障碍患者生理心理社会危险因素的研究. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 24(6), 532-535.
[4] 石元洪, 童萍, 董丽平(2014). 躯体形式障碍患者治疗依从性的影响因素分析. 中华行为医学与脑科学杂志, 23(10), 920-922.
[5] 王培培, 王清馨(2016). 乳腺癌患者创伤后成长与焦虑, 抑郁的相关性分析. 遵义医学院学报, 39(1), 85-88.
[6] 朱熊兆, 罗伏生, 姚树桥(2007). 认知情绪调节问卷中文版(CERQ-C)的信效度研究. 中国心理卫生杂志, 15(2), 121- 131.
[7] Acheson, D. T., Stein, M. B., & Paulus, M. P. (2012). Effects of Anxiolytic Treatment on Potentiated Startle during Aversive Image Anticipation. Human Psychopharmacology: Clinical and Experimental, 27, 419-427.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hup.2243
[8] Aldao, A., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2012). The Influence of Context on the Implementation of Adaptive Emotion Regulation Strategies. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 50, 493-501.
[9] Beblo, T., Scheulen, C., & Fernando, S. C. (2011). Psychometric Analysis of a New Questionnaire Assessing the Acceptance of Unpleasant and Pleasant Emotions (FrAGe). Zeitschrift fur Psychiatrie Psychologie und Psychotherapie, 59, 133-144.
https://doi.org/10.1024/1661-4747/a000063
[10] D’Acremont, M., & Van der Linden, M. (2006). How Is Impulsivity Related to Depression? Evidence from a French Validation of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire. Journal of Adolescence, 24, 65-75.
[11] De La Cruz, L. F., Landau, D., & Iervolino, A. C. (2013). Experiential Avoidance and Emotion Regulation Difficulties in Hoarding Disorder. Journal of Anxiety Disorders, 27, 204-209.
[12] De Vroege, L., Hoedeman, R., & Nuyen, J. (2012). Validation of the PHQ-15 for Somatofo Disorder in the Occupational Health Care Setting. Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation, 22, 51-58.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-011-9320-6
[13] Denny, B. T., Ochsner, K. N., & Weber, J. (2014). Anticipatory Brain Activity Predicts the Success or Failure of Subsequent Emotion Regulation. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, 9, 403-411.
https://doi.org/10.1093/scan/nss148
[14] Drabant, E. M., Kuo, J. R., & Ramel, W. (2011). Experiential, Autonomic, and Neural Responses during Threat Anticipation Vary as a Function of Threat Intensity and Neuroticism. Neuroimage, 55, 401-410.
[15] Galli, G., Wolpe, N., & Otten, L. J. (2011) Sex Differences in the Use of Anticipatory Brain Activity to Encode Emotional Events. The Journal of Neuroscience, 31, 12364-12370.
https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1619-11.2011
[16] Grupe, D. W., & Nitschke, J. B. (2013). Uncertainty and Anticipation in Anxiety: An Integrated Neurobiological and Psychological Perspective. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 14, 488-501.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn3524
[17] Haeffel, G. J., Rozek, D. C., & Hames, J. L. (2012). Too Much of a Good Thing: Testing the Efficacy of a Cognitive Bias Modification Task for Cognitively Vulnerable Individuals. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 36, 493-501.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-011-9379-6
[18] Hu, T., Zhang, D., & Wang, J. (2014). Relation between Emotion Regulation and Mental Health: A Meta-Analysis Review. Psychological Reports, 114, 341-362.
https://doi.org/10.2466/03.20.PR0.114k22w4
[19] Mobini, S., Reynolds, S., & Mackintosh, B. (2013). Clinical Implications of Cognitive Bias Modification for Interpretative Biases in Social Anxiety: An Integrative Literature Review. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 37, 173-182.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-012-9445-8
[20] Scherpiet, S., Brühl, A. B., & Opialla, S. (2014). Altered Emotion Processing Circuits during the Anticipation of Emotional Stimuli in Women with Borderline Personality Disorder. European Archives of Psychiatry and Clinical Neuroscience, 264, 45-60.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00406-013-0444-x