PubMed · 15273068
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
2004. Hypochondria.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15273068/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Chronic pain has adverse effects on individuals with chronic pain (ICPs) as well as their family members. Borrowing from an empathy model described by Goubert et al. (2005), we examined top-down and bottom-up factors that may be related to psychological well-being in the spouses of ICPs. A diverse community sample of 113 middle-aged spouses of individuals with chronic pain (ICPs) completed measures on pain severity and spouse pain catastrophizing (PCS-S; Cano et al., 2005). Results showed that almost half (48.7%) of spouses reported chronic pain themselves and that pain in the spouse accounted for within-couple differences on psychological distress. That is, in couples where only the ICP reported pain, ICP psychological distress was greater than their spouses. However, when both partners reported chronic pain, there was no significant difference in psychological distress between partners. Hierarchical regression analyses showed that spouse magnification catastrophizing was associated with depressive and anxiety symptoms, and that helplessness catastrophizing was associated with depressive symptoms for spouses of ICPs who also reported chronic pain but not for spouses of ICPs without chronic pain. The results are discussed in light of interpersonal processes that may affect spouses' distress.
This study aimed at exploring the existing predominant critical thinking disposition(s) of baccalaureate nursing students and the relationship among their critical thinking (CT), self-esteem (SE), and state anxiety (SA). Cross-sectional correlational design was utilized to achieve the said aim. A voluntary convenient sample consisted of first year (n=105) and fourth year (n=60) nursing students. The California Critical Thinking Disposition Inventory, Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and Spielberger State Anxiety Inventory were used for data collection after their translation to Arabic language and test for validity and reliability. Descriptive and inferential statistics were used to analyze data. Results showed that both groups overall CT was marginal indicating no serious deficiency, their SE was average, and their SA was relatively high; they reported analyticity, open-mindedness, systematicity, inquisitiveness, and truth seeking as predominant critical thinking dispositions with no significant difference between them. However, the two groups were weak with significant difference on CT self-confidence (t=-2.053, df=136.904, p=.042) with beginning students reporting poorer level of CT self-confidence. Significant correlation results showed that critical thinking is positively correlated with SE, negatively correlated with SA, and SE is negatively correlated with SA; however, all correlations were actually quite low.
BACKGROUND: Breast cancer screening with mammography has been shown to be effective for preventing breast cancer death. However, mammography screening can be harmful to women. One of the major problems is anxiety from a false positive result. Previous studies do not consider intangible benefits related to anxiety or peace of mind in mammography screening. In order to quantify anxiety, we employed the contingent valuation method (CVM) to measure the general public's willingness to pay (WTP) for mammography screening. METHODS: About 397 women aged 50-59 participated in the computer-assisted questionnaire survey. For the WTP question format, the double-bound dichotomous choice approach was employed. Participants were randomly assigned into 2 groups. Group A (n = 200) was provided with information about the procedure, detection rate and mortality reduction of mammography screening. Group B (n = 197) was provided with additional information including possibility of false positives and the risks of close examinations. RESULTS: The mean WTP was significantly greater in Group A than in Group B ($16.82 vs. $12.89, P = 0.02). A Weibull regression analysis showed that, type of information, history of receiving mammography screening, family history of cancer, and the degree of concern about health were significant factors affecting WTP. CONCLUSIONS: Women must be well informed before making decisions about mammography screening. Although anxiety from information about false positives significantly decreased the women's benefit, the amount of WTP in the well-informed group was still considerable. The results suggest that women can balance the anxiety against the effectiveness.