The cognitive theory of panic disorder: A systematic narrative review

IF 13.7 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL Clinical Psychology Review Pub Date : 2024-08-13 DOI:10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102483
{"title":"The cognitive theory of panic disorder: A systematic narrative review","authors":"","doi":"10.1016/j.cpr.2024.102483","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Background</h3><p>The cognitive theory of panic disorder proposes that individuals with panic disorder have a relatively enduring tendency to catastrophically misinterpret bodily sensations resulting in panic attacks.</p></div><div><h3>Aims</h3><p>We investigated whether the evidence is consistent with the theory and its predictions, if updates are required and sought to identify future research considerations.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PsycInfo, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL (1986 to July 2024). Inclusion criteria were studies collecting quantitative data derived from panic disorder patients, testing one of the predictions and using appropriate outcome measures. Exclusion criteria were non-English language publications, all participants under the age of 18 and studies that were not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Quality was assessed using ‘QualSyst’ and synthesis was based on each prediction tested. PROPSERO registration #CRD42022332211.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>53 studies were identified amongst 49 publications. There was substantial evidence for all predictions. Three studies did not support the prediction tested and none were inconsistent.</p></div><div><h3>Limitations</h3><p>Most studies were ‘medium’ in quality and were predominately from female samples.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>Findings are consistent with the theory and its predictions. Higher quality research is needed and implications for future research are discussed.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48458,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Psychology Review","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":13.7000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824001041/pdfft?md5=2b5e8c0e5da3a800e3a3cccc30c4bb7d&pid=1-s2.0-S0272735824001041-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Psychology Review","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272735824001041","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background

The cognitive theory of panic disorder proposes that individuals with panic disorder have a relatively enduring tendency to catastrophically misinterpret bodily sensations resulting in panic attacks.

Aims

We investigated whether the evidence is consistent with the theory and its predictions, if updates are required and sought to identify future research considerations.

Methods

We searched Scopus, Web of Science, PsycInfo, EMBASE, MEDLINE and CINAHL (1986 to July 2024). Inclusion criteria were studies collecting quantitative data derived from panic disorder patients, testing one of the predictions and using appropriate outcome measures. Exclusion criteria were non-English language publications, all participants under the age of 18 and studies that were not published in a peer-reviewed journal. Quality was assessed using ‘QualSyst’ and synthesis was based on each prediction tested. PROPSERO registration #CRD42022332211.

Results

53 studies were identified amongst 49 publications. There was substantial evidence for all predictions. Three studies did not support the prediction tested and none were inconsistent.

Limitations

Most studies were ‘medium’ in quality and were predominately from female samples.

Conclusions

Findings are consistent with the theory and its predictions. Higher quality research is needed and implications for future research are discussed.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
恐慌症的认知理论:系统性叙事回顾
背景惊恐障碍的认知理论认为,惊恐障碍患者有一种相对持久的倾向,会对身体感觉产生灾难性的误解,从而导致惊恐发作。研究目的我们调查了相关证据是否与该理论及其预测一致,是否需要更新,并试图确定未来研究的注意事项。纳入标准是收集恐慌症患者的定量数据、测试其中一项预测并使用适当的结果测量指标的研究。排除标准为非英语出版物、所有参与者均未满 18 周岁以及未在同行评审期刊上发表的研究。使用 "QualSyst "对研究质量进行评估,并根据每项预测结果进行综合。PROPSERO注册号为CRD42022332211.结果在49篇出版物中确定了53项研究。所有预测均有大量证据支持。限制大多数研究的质量为 "中等",且主要来自女性样本。需要进行更高质量的研究,并讨论了对未来研究的影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Psychology Review
Clinical Psychology Review PSYCHOLOGY, CLINICAL-
CiteScore
23.10
自引率
1.60%
发文量
65
期刊介绍: Clinical Psychology Review serves as a platform for substantial reviews addressing pertinent topics in clinical psychology. Encompassing a spectrum of issues, from psychopathology to behavior therapy, cognition to cognitive therapies, behavioral medicine to community mental health, assessment, and child development, the journal seeks cutting-edge papers that significantly contribute to advancing the science and/or practice of clinical psychology. While maintaining a primary focus on topics directly related to clinical psychology, the journal occasionally features reviews on psychophysiology, learning therapy, experimental psychopathology, and social psychology, provided they demonstrate a clear connection to research or practice in clinical psychology. Integrative literature reviews and summaries of innovative ongoing clinical research programs find a place within its pages. However, reports on individual research studies and theoretical treatises or clinical guides lacking an empirical base are deemed inappropriate for publication.
期刊最新文献
Factors related to help-seeking and service utilization for professional mental healthcare among young people: An umbrella review Positive health outcomes of mindfulness-based interventions for cancer patients and survivors: A systematic review and meta-analysis Sleep and paranoia: A systematic review and meta-analysis Avoidant/restrictive food intake disorder: Systematic review and meta-analysis demonstrating the impact of study quality on prevalence rates Gender nonconformity and common mental health problems: A meta-analysis
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1