论文部分内容阅读
目的 探讨躯体形式障碍患者焦虑、抑郁情绪及述情障碍、社会支持使用的特点及相互关系.方法 采用患者健康问卷抑郁症状群量表(PHQ?9)、广泛性焦虑障碍量表(GAD?7)、患者健康问卷躯体症状群量表(PHQ?15)、社会支持评定量表及多伦多述情障碍量表(TAS?20),对71例躯体形式障碍患者(患者组)和75名健康志愿者(对照组)进行测评并进行组间比较,并对躯体形式障碍患者的心理健康状况与其社会支持利用度、述情障碍等做Pearson相关分析,在此基础上进行逐步回归分析其关联.结果(1)与对照组比较,患者组PHQ?9、GAD?7和PHQ?15总分均增高(t=46.67,41.24, 49.64,均P<0.01).(2)除客观社会支持外,患者组的社会支持总分、主观社会支持和社会支持利用度评分均低于对照组[(36.97±6.74)分比(40.54±5.47)分,(19.34±3.17)分比(23.53±3.62)分,(6.41±3.13)分比(8.36±2.43)分;t=7.46、4.28、3.52,均P<0.01];两组TAS?20总分及各因子分差异有统计学意义(t=8.08、8.52、5.54、7.35,均P<0.01).(3)相关性分析显示,患者组抑郁、焦虑以及躯体症状量表分之和(PHQ?9+GAD?7+PHQ?15)与主观社会支持、社会支持利用度、社会支持总分、情感辨别不能、情感描述不能、外向性思维及述情障碍量表总分相关(r=-0.372、-0.359、-0.426、0.368、0.327、0.306、0.364,均P<0 . 0 1);多元回归分析显示,非精神科就诊次数(χ 1)、社会支持利用度(χ 2)、不良反应(χ 3)、T A S?Ⅱ(χ4)和TAS?Ⅰ(χ5)依次进入回归方程.结论 躯体形式障碍患者的述情障碍、社会支持利用度低、非精神科就医次数多及自觉不良反应程度重等可能是影响其情绪及躯体症状的关键因素.“,”Objective To investigate the affective and somatic symptoms of patients with somatoform disorders (SFD) and their related factors to their social support and alexithymia. Methods Seventy-one patients with SFD and 75 healthy controls (HC) were recruited. Health Questionnaire?9 (PHQ?9), General Anxiety Scale (GAD?7), Patient Health Questionnaire 15?Item Somatic Symptom Severity Scale (PHQ?15), Toronto Alexithymia Scale (TAS?20) and Social Support Rating Scale (SSRS) were evaluated for all subjects. Results (1) The total scores of all the PHQ?9, GAD?7 and PHQ?15 in patients group were significantly higher than that in HC (t=46.67, 41.24, 49.64, P<0.01). (2) Except the objective social support, subject social support and social support utilization in SFD group were lower than those in HC (36.97±6.74 vs. 40.54±5.47, 19.34±3.17 vs. 23.53±3.62, 6.41±3.13 vs. 8.36±2.43; t=7.46, 4.28, 3.52; P<0.01). There were significant differences in TAS?20 between the two groups (t=8.08, 8.52, 5.54, 7.35, P<0.01). (3) By the correlation analysis in patient group, the sum score of the affective and somatic symptom (PHQ?9+GAD?7+PHQ?15) was significantly correlated to the subjective social support, social support utilization, social support total score, TAS?Ⅰ, TAS?Ⅱ, TAS?Ⅲand TAS?20 total score (r=-0.372,-0.359,-0.426, 0.368, 0.327, 0.306, 0.364, P<0.01). And the numbers of non?mental health clinic visits (χ1), social support utilization (χ2), adverse reactions(χ3), TAS?Ⅱ (χ4) and TAS?Ⅰ (χ5) contributed to the multiple regression equation for the sum of PHQ?9, GAD?7 and PHQ?15 scores. Conclusion The alexithymia and incapability of perceiving and utilizing social support, numbers of visits in non?mental health clinic and the medication adverse reactions that subjectively perceived in the patients with SFD may be the key factors that could impact their affective and somatic symptoms.