PubMed · 9919255
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
M Dixon, A Whittle. Face to face.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9919255/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
It has been suggested that lack of awareness of illness in schizophrenia may result from deficits in executive function and/or an avoidant style of coping. To examine this question, 132 persons with schizophrenia spectrum disorders were rated as either "aware," "partially unaware" or "unaware" of: (a) their illness, (b) need for treatment and (c) consequences of disorder on the abbreviated Scale to Assess Unawareness of Mental Disorder. We next compared the performance of the aware, partially unaware and unaware groups on the "escape-avoidance" and "positive reappraisal" subtests of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire and on two tests of executive function: the Letter Number Sequencing Subtest of the WAIS III and Wisconsin Card Sorting Test. MANCOVA followed by ANCOVA and planned comparisons, controlling for age indicated that the participants who were unaware of symptoms, treatment need and consequences generally performed more poorly than the aware groups on tests of executive function. Participants unaware of symptoms also had a greater preference for positive reappraisal than aware or partially unaware participants. The participants unaware of the consequences of disorder endorsed a greater preference for escape-avoidance than the partially unaware participants. Implications for understanding the etiology of lack of awareness in schizophrenia are discussed.
Vulnerability-stress models suggest that training in specific stress management techniques should yield benefits to those suffering from schizophrenia and related disorders. In this paper, we describe an evaluation of the impact of adding a stress management program to other medical and psychosocial interventions for such patients. Outcomes were compared for 121 patients randomly assigned to receive either a 12-week stress management program with follow-up sessions or participation in a social activities group. The two treatment conditions did not differ in levels of symptoms, perceived stress or life skills immediately after completion of treatment or at 1-year follow-up. Patients who received the stress management program did have fewer hospital admissions in the year following treatment. This effect of stress management was most apparent for those who showed high levels of attendance for treatment sessions. It was concluded that training in stress management may provide patients with skills for coping with acute stressors and reduce the likelihood of subsequent acute exacerbation of symptoms with need for hospitalization.
Physical stress (PS) and emotional stress (ES) have opposite long-term effects on open field behaviour. PS consisted of a repeated mild foot shock treatment, which the ES animals witnessed. PS caused a long-term decrease in locomotor activity and exploration behaviours and increased immobility. ES induced an increase in locomotor activity. These changes in open field behaviour could be the result of several factors such as increased anxiety, a shift in coping strategy or simply a change in locomotor activity. To investigate the effect of the PS and ES treatment on these separate factors, the following behavioural tests were performed: defensive withdrawal, shock prod bury, large open field and social interaction. PS animals initially showed immobility in the shock prod bury test and the large open field, while the differences measured over the entire test period were small or not present. PS did not induce differences in the defensive withdrawal and the social interaction tests. ES and control animals did not differ significantly in any of the tests. The effects of PS in the shock prod bury test in particular can be interpreted as an indication of a passive coping style. However, PS animals showed the same behaviour as controls, but started displaying the behaviour after the initial immobility response. It is concluded that neither PS nor ES affects the coping style and anxiety level of the rats. PS induces a delay in behavioural responding and ES induces locomotor activation per se. It seems that the shock prod bury test is most suitable to distinguish between exploration and coping style.