Cognitive Errors and Psychological Resilience in Patients With Social Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study

L. Ebrahimi, Seyedeh Elnaz Mousavi, B. Gharraee, Jahangir Mohammadi Bytamar, M. S. Isfeedvajani
{"title":"Cognitive Errors and Psychological Resilience in Patients With Social Anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder: A Cross-Sectional Study","authors":"L. Ebrahimi, Seyedeh Elnaz Mousavi, B. Gharraee, Jahangir Mohammadi Bytamar, M. S. Isfeedvajani","doi":"10.15171/HPR.2019.04","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cognitive errors have been presented as effective factors in the creation and continuation of obsessive– compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder. Psychological resilience is an important factor in the tolerance of cognitive errors. Objective: The present study aimed to compare cognitive errors and the psychological resilience of patients with social anxiety disorder and those with obsessive–compulsive disorder. Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated a total of 60 patients, 30 with social anxiety disorder and 30 with obsessivecompulsive disorder (OCD), seen at a hospital in Zanjan city, Iran, in 2017. Participants were aged between 15 and 50 years. Participants were chosen using convenience sampling and on the basis of psychiatrist diagnosis and structured diagnostic interviews (SCID-I, II) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cognitive Errors Questionnaire (CET) and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) were used to assess the variables. Results: A significant difference was observed between the two patient groups in the cognitive errors components (P≤0.05). In patients with OCD, the highest average rate of cognitive errors was related to catastrophizing and splitting error. In patients with SAD, the highest mean rate of cognitive errors was related to catastrophizing. There was no significant difference in psychological resilience between the two groups. Conclusion: Cognitive errors play an important role in OCD and social anxiety disorder (SAD). OCD patients were observed to make more cognitive errors than SAD patients. However, psychological resilience was equal between both groups.","PeriodicalId":32113,"journal":{"name":"Hospital Practices and Research","volume":"36 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-01-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Hospital Practices and Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.15171/HPR.2019.04","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Cognitive errors have been presented as effective factors in the creation and continuation of obsessive– compulsive disorder and social anxiety disorder. Psychological resilience is an important factor in the tolerance of cognitive errors. Objective: The present study aimed to compare cognitive errors and the psychological resilience of patients with social anxiety disorder and those with obsessive–compulsive disorder. Methods: This cross-sectional study investigated a total of 60 patients, 30 with social anxiety disorder and 30 with obsessivecompulsive disorder (OCD), seen at a hospital in Zanjan city, Iran, in 2017. Participants were aged between 15 and 50 years. Participants were chosen using convenience sampling and on the basis of psychiatrist diagnosis and structured diagnostic interviews (SCID-I, II) according to the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The Cognitive Errors Questionnaire (CET) and the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) were used to assess the variables. Results: A significant difference was observed between the two patient groups in the cognitive errors components (P≤0.05). In patients with OCD, the highest average rate of cognitive errors was related to catastrophizing and splitting error. In patients with SAD, the highest mean rate of cognitive errors was related to catastrophizing. There was no significant difference in psychological resilience between the two groups. Conclusion: Cognitive errors play an important role in OCD and social anxiety disorder (SAD). OCD patients were observed to make more cognitive errors than SAD patients. However, psychological resilience was equal between both groups.
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
社交焦虑和强迫症患者的认知错误和心理弹性:一项横断面研究
背景:认知错误被认为是强迫症和社交焦虑障碍产生和持续的有效因素。心理弹性是认知错误容忍度的重要因素。目的:比较社交焦虑障碍患者与强迫症患者的认知错误和心理弹性。方法:本横断面研究调查了2017年在伊朗赞詹市一家医院就诊的60例患者,其中30例患有社交焦虑症,30例患有强迫症(OCD)。参与者的年龄在15到50岁之间。根据纳入标准和排除标准,采用方便抽样方法,在精神科医生诊断和结构化诊断访谈(SCID-I, II)的基础上选择参与者。采用认知错误问卷(CET)和康诺-戴维森弹性量表(CD-RISC)对变量进行评估。结果:两组患者在认知错误成分上差异有统计学意义(P≤0.05)。在强迫症患者中,认知错误的平均发生率最高的是灾难化和分裂错误。在SAD患者中,最高的平均认知错误率与灾难化有关。两组的心理弹性无显著差异。结论:认知错误在强迫症和社交焦虑障碍(SAD)中起重要作用。强迫症患者比SAD患者出现更多的认知错误。然而,两组之间的心理弹性是相等的。
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
自引率
0.00%
发文量
7
审稿时长
18 weeks
期刊最新文献
Adjuvant Perioperative Intravenous Lidocaine is Effective and Safe for Postoperative Pain Management and Rehabilitation in Gynecology Surgery: A Randomized, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Trial Serum Vitamin D, Renal Biomarkers, Protein Profile and Some Electrolytes in Chronic Kidney Disease Patients With a Clinical Trial of Vitamin D Therapy Investigating the Effect of Post-Delivery Telephone Counseling on the Rate of Exclusive Breastfeeding Among Infants An Investigation of the COVID-19-Related Anxiety Levels of Individuals According to Some Demographic Variables Determined the Frequency of Neurosurgeries Canceled Due to the Asymptomatic COVID-19 in the Patients
×
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