Hilbert C Zeballos Md 5 / 5 1 Review
PLoS One. 2018; 13(11): e0202538.
The structure of resilience in irritable bowel syndrome and its improvement through hypnotherapy: Cross-sectional and prospective longitudinal data
Johannes Peter
1 Gastroenterology and Hepatology Partitioning, Department of Internal Medicine III, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Ulrich S. Tran
2 Department of Bones Psychological Enquiry and Research Methods, School of Psychology, University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Maria Michalski
1 Gastroenterology and Hepatology Division, Department of Internal Medicine Iii, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria
Gabriele Moser
one Gastroenterology and Hepatology Division, Section of Internal Medicine Three, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Republic of austria
Iratxe Puebla, Editor
Received 2016 October 12; Accepted 2018 Jul 27.
- Supplementary Materials
-
S1 Appendix: ClinicalTrials.gov Registration. (PDF)
GUID: BE9D7F56-739D-43E7-AAB7-B1B4835E9E98
S2 Appendix: Study protocol (German). (PDF)
GUID: 8D061311-CD0C-4FC4-AC5F-626F1F85BA29
S3 Appendix: Study protocol (English translation). (PDF)
GUID: B5EC9ED2-3EB5-4124-B358-65593710459F
S4 Appendix: Tendency Checklist. (PDF)
GUID: 279143FF-DF35-4EF1-AD84-BF77C71C76A4
- Information Availability Argument
-
Data are available from the database www.figshare.com under the doi: 10.6084/m9.figshare.4737232.
Abstruse
Groundwork
Resilience refers to a grade of variables that are highly relevant to wellbeing and coping with stress, trauma, and chronic adversity. Despite its significance for health, resilience suffers from poor conceptual integration. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) is a functional disorder with altered psychological stress reactivity and a encephalon-gut-microbiota axis, which causes high levels of chronic strain. Gut-directed Hypnotherapy (GHT) is a standardized treatment for IBS aimed at improving resilience. An improvement of resilience equally a event of GHT has been hypothesized just requires further investigation. The aims of the written report were to validate the construct and develop an integrational measure of various resilience domains by dimensional reduction, and to investigate changes in resilience in IBS patients afterwards GHT.
Method
A total of North = 74 gastroenterology outpatients with IBS (Rome III criteria) were examined in vii resilience domains, quality of life, psychological distress and symptom severity. Of these, n = 53 participated in seven to 10 GHT group sessions (Manchester protocol). Post-treatment examinations were performed on average x months after last GHT session.
Results
Resilience factors proved to be unidimensional in the total sample. Greater resilience (composite score of resilience domains) and quality of life, and lower symptom severity and psychological distress were found after treatment (n = 16). Similar differences were nowadays in cross-sectional comparisons of n = 37 treated vs. n = 37 untreated patients.
Conclusion
Resilience factors share a common psychological dimension and are functionally connected. The absenteeism of maladaptive behaviours contributes to resilience. Improvements in resilience after hypnotherapy with parallel increases in quality of life and reduced psychological distress and symptom severity were observed. Contained replications with larger sample sizes and randomized controlled trials are needed.
Introduction
Resilience
The term resilience refers to a class of psychological and behavioural variables essential to adaptive and coping ability. These variables are indicative of an individual'south capacity to maintain or regain well-beingness and psychological equilibrium in the face of stress, trauma, or chronic adversity, and are crucially connected to processes of mental health promotion, protection and recovery. Davydov et al. [1] drew an analogy between resilience and somatic models of immunity in medicine. However, the construct still needs conceptual progress, specially regarding the integration of different proposed factors and their psychometric measurement. In that location is noticeable overlap betwixt resilience domains derived from different lines of research (Table i); for overviews run into [i, 2].
Tabular array 1
Proposed psychological and behavioural factors of resilience.
| Optimism and adaptive explanatory style [iii, four] |
| Active coping style [5, vi], and physical action [vii, 8] |
| Positive emotionality [9], humour [ten], emotion regulation and reappraisal ability [11] |
| Self-efficacy [12] and coping ability appraisals [13] |
| Social support [14] and zipper security [15] |
| Purpose and value orientation [16], spirituality [17] and mindfulness [18] |
| Cognitive [19] and executive functioning [xx] |
The familiarity and functional relatedness betwixt different resilience domains is obvious. This may represent the inherent qualities of resilience variables themselves, which is a subject of investigation in this written report. Merely it is also caused by a multitude of similar constructs and different operationalizations used in the field. Resilience research suffers from poor concept definition and the lack of a unified methodology [1, 21]. An integrative framework for the report of resilience that emphasizes the role of stimulus-appraisal processes in response to stressors has been proposed [22]. Progress has besides been made in the investigation of neurobiological aspects of resilience [23, 24]. Further endeavor in integrating behavioural and psychological mechanisms too seems necessary to overcome the fragmentation of resilience and its related constructs, and to facilitate the design of interventions for promotion of mental health and well-being. A meta-analysis of interventions aiming to better resilience has shown small to moderate effects [21].
Seeing both sides of the coin: Positive psychology and absence of pathology
Resilience research is greatly linked with positive psychology, and focusing on resources and strengths instead of on pathology represents a paradigmatic shift in psychology and health professions [25]. However, exclusively taking account of the 'positive' side neglects an of import fact: well-existence and adaptation are supported non only by the presence of resources and positive behaviours, merely also by the absenteeism of detrimental behaviours. Maladaptive emotion-regulation strategies [11], perceptions of negative affect, and emotional instability are related to negative developmental trajectories. They are also linked to the personality dimension of neuroticism [26]. In the conceptual framework by Kalisch et al. [22], this attribute is reflected in the axiomatic mechanism of interference inhibition: inhibition of mentally costly negative emotional reactions is considered to exist crucial for accommodation to stress and to positive wellness outcomes.
Irritable bowel syndrome
Chronic diseases cause great psychological strain. Coping, adapting, and resilience are therefore of great significance in chronic physical illness and psychosomatic conditions [27]. Irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), a functional disorder affecting the gastrointestinal tract, is a condition that leads to significantly diminished quality of life [28]. Prior research has provided evidence of reduced resilience in IBS, compared to healthy controls [29, thirty], and of the important role of resilience, cognitive appraisement, and coping styles for health-related outcomes in IBS [31, 32].
IBS is characterized past altered bowel habits and perceptions of pain, discomfort, and concomitant distress. Its pathophysiology is described as an imbalance in the encephalon-gut centrality with perturbations of visceral homeostasis, exaggerated autonomic reactions and hyperalgesia. It also includes a number of psychological mechanisms such as hypervigilance towards interoceptive signals, alexithymia [33] and enhanced responsiveness to psychosocial stressors [34, 35]. The majority of IBS patients report emotional problems, such as anxiety and depression [36], which suggests that psychological changes are a crucial chemical element in the disturbed encephalon-gut communication in IBS [37]. Gut microbiota changes may too be an of import factor in IBS pathophysiology. Relatively recent advances in this field signal to a connexion between gut microbiota and visceral hypersensitivity, allowed functioning and neurotransmitter metabolism, simply also with behavioural patterns of anxiety and depression, stress reactivity and resilience [38, 39].
Reduced healthcare consumption following a relaxation-response-based resilience intervention has been reported in i controlled cohort study [40]. These findings are relevant to the treatment of IBS, since its economical impact is known to be severe [41].
Gut-directed hypnotherapy and its key nervous bear on
Psychological needs are recognized to be an of import management issue in IBS [42] and take entered clinical guidelines [43]. A number of psychological therapies for IBS have been developed [44], among which, gut-directed hypnotherapy (GHT) is a prominent and well-researched therapy [45, 46]. There is show for several pathways of activity of GHT, ranging from the immunological touch on (albeit ascertained only in inflammatory bowel illness patients then far) [47], furnishings on gut motility [48] and on autonomic nervous arrangement activeness [49], to a reduction of visceral hypersensitivity [50]. However, these effects have not been consistently reported and are rather limited in relation to the magnitude of the therapeutic furnishings observed. Consequently, the supposition has been made that GHT primarily acts past its effect on key processing [49, 51]. This is underpinned by a study that showed that dysfunctional gastrointestinal-related cognitions decrease with GHT [52], and past a neuroimaging written report that establish contradistinct functional cerebral connectivity reflecting normalized processing of visceral stimuli after GHT [53].
Led by the observation that many patients without direct symptom improvements study high levels of satisfaction with this therapy and an improved quality of life, Lindfors et al. [54] were the outset to posit that GHT might do good coping. However, in their trial [54] sense of coherence [55], a construct considered inclusive of resilience [56], did not amend significantly after GHT. All the same, the supposition of an improvement in resilience as a result of GHT is compelling: the treatment protocol contains suggestions targeting perceptions of command, problem-solving power, and positive self-esteem. Furthermore, the experience of relaxation and positive body experiences (e.yard., warmth past application of the patients' ain hands) and suggestions of self-healing may strengthen the belief in cocky-regulative and self-healing ability. Nosotros hypothesized that it is precisely this that affects the class of variables linked to resilience (Table 2).
Table 2
How gut-directed hypnotherapy might heighten resilience and coping.
| Suggestions targeting: |
| Emotional security |
| Reduction of dysfunctional cognition |
| Self-efficacy |
| Control over actual processes |
| Sense of self-healing |
| Directly experience of: |
| Relaxation |
| Positive body experience |
| Inner resource (e.g., pleasant memories) |
| Positive emotion |
| Effective self-regulation |
Aims of the present study
The perspective of this study is observational and originates from the clinical practise at a 3rd care heart. Inside the context and limitations of this setting, the study aimed (one) to assess factors of resilience in a sample of IBS patients and to investigate whether they were facets of the same underlying construct; (2) to calculate one or more composite scores for resilience that captured its latent factors; and finally, (three) to investigate differences between patients untreated or treated with GHT in groups by cross-sectional and longitudinal comparisons, testing the hypothesis of an improvement in resilience (using the composite score[southward]), with changes in IBS symptoms, quality of life and psychological distress in parallel.
Methods
Study location and recruitment
The study was conducted at the specialist outpatient-clinic for psychosomatics at the Gastroenterology and Hepatology Division, Department for Internal Medicine Iii, University Hospital of Vienna.
Included were IBS patients diagnosed according to Rome 3 criteria, aged betwixt 18 and 75, and refractory to other IBS therapies. 'Refractory' here refers to IBS patients who had failed to ameliorate on a variety of therapies (IBS medications, antidepressants, probiotics, psychotherapy), who were unhappy about their care and who had a persistently loftier charge per unit of healthcare consumption [57]. Patients with acute medical complications, pregnancy or insufficient knowledge of German language were excluded from this study.
Information collection was performed in two stages. Patients in Grouping A had participated in prospective routine assessments earlier undergoing gut-directed hypnotherapy treatment prior to the current written report. GHT is a routine treatment at the study site and had therefore been administered to the patients of Group A earlier they as well gave their consent to participate in the current study. Patients in Group A were repeatedly contacted via telephone and/or mail to participate in this study, which involved participation in a follow-upward assessment and read-out of existing routine data. Patient information, informed consent form and questionnaires for participation in the current study were sent via postal service, also including a stamped-addressed envelope for returning the completed documents to the hospital.
Patients in Group B were recruited straight at the outpatient clinic, consecutively as referred and every bit potential candidates for GHT. A subset of patients in Group B were administered GHT afterwards the baseline examination. These patients were followed-up the same way as patients in Group A. Antidepressants, anxiolytics and/or ongoing psychotherapy were immune, since comorbid psychological diagnoses, a common problem in IBS patients, were present in the written report sample. The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (ID: {"type":"clinical-trial","attrs":{"text":"NCT02737410","term_id":"NCT02737410"}}NCT02737410; see S1 Appendix). Registration at ClinicalTrials.gov took place later enrolment started, because the written report was reviewed and registered locally (blessing by the ideals committee of the Medical University of Vienna on fourthursday September 2012, ID: 1488/2012). The authors ostend that all ongoing and related trials for this intervention are registered. Each participant gave their written informed consent.
Calculations of sample size were based on data from a prior gut-directed hypnotherapy trial [58] at the study site and yielded a required group size of 49 subjects (see appendix for details). Due to limited research resources, recruitment aimed at only forty patients per grouping.
Study conduction and treatment
Patients in Grouping A were routinely assessed immediately before GHT and treated from January 2010 to June 2012. These patients were contacted and sent questionnaires to participate in a follow-upwardly examination from Oct 2012 to January 2013. Overall, northward = 67 patients in Group A were contacted via telephone and/or mail, of which due north = 4 declined to participate, north = ii were uncontactable due to unknown address, and n = 24 did not render the questionnaires. Specific reasons for non-participation were not disclosed and could not exist ascertained (e.g., dissatisfaction with treatment, unattainability or for other reasons). No financial or other incentives were given for study participation or for returning the questionnaires. Completed questionnaires were returned by n = 37 patients in Group A.
Patients in Group B (due north = xl) were contacted straight and recruited consecutively at the outpatient clinic from Oct 2012 to March 2013. Three (north = three) patients did not return questionnaires, resulting in n = 37 questionnaires in Group B. Organizational feasibility and willingness to participate in the group therapy was nowadays in n = 21 patients in Group B. GHT was provided to these patients between November 2012 and October 2013; follow-up/postal service-handling examinations were performed between January and May 2014. The follow-upwardly exam of patients in Grouping B later on treatment was not planned or indicated in the original study protocol (see S2 and S3 Appendix), but since there was a demand for therapy and willingness to participate in further examinations in the 21 patients, at that place was a follow-up to collect further longitudinal data, increasing the validity of the study. Of the patients treated in Group B, n = five were lost to follow-up (ii uncontactable, ii work delivery, 1 dissatisfied; Fig i). Mail-handling examinations were performed approximately 10 months after the last GHT session in both groups (Grand[ean] = 10.iii months after the last GHT session, range: 1–31 months in n = 37 of Group A; M = ten.4 months after final GHT session, range: iii–16 months in the subset of n = sixteen patients treated of Group B). No adverse events were reported during or after the study.
There was no blinding of investigators or patients. The GHT treatment protocol used was the Manchester protocol of GHT [58, 59] and consisted of 10 weekly sessions (45 min) with vi patients per group over a treatment period of 12 weeks. GHT was performed at the University Hospital by two experienced physicians (GM, MM) trained in Manchester (UK).
Assessment
All scales were administered to participants in German. Previously published and validated German versions had been applied except for core resilience (10-item CD-RISC) and IBS symptom severity (IBS-SSS). In these cases translations by our ain research group(south) were used. In both cases, translation into High german, independent back-translation into English language, and comparing of both English versions for equality by English native speakers, as advisable, had taken place. Equivalent German language translations (with validation data assuring psychometric validity) accept been published in both cases in the interim.
Primary outcome: Resilience questionnaires
Resilience as the primary outcome variable(s) in this report was assessed with a broad measurement arroyo using several questionnaires capturing variables with a known connection to resilience ('resilience factors'), which can exist assigned to 7 domains.
'Core-resilience' was assessed using a German form of the ten-detail Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) [60], which is a short version of the original CD-RISC economically measuring an individual's perceived power to accommodate to change and to cope with stress or hardship. It was rated equally one of the better short instruments for assessing resilience [61]. The High german version had been translated into German inside a previous trial [60]. Responses are scored on a 4-signal scale. Sarubin et al. [62] accept published an equivalent translation and confirmed the unidimensionality of the German language version. They reported an internal consistency of α = .84 [62].
Self-efficacy was assessed using the Skala zur allgemeinen Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung (SWE) [63], a ten-item High german scale on perceptions of self-efficacy as the power to handle and cope with a wide range of challenging situations optimistically. Responses are scored on a 4-bespeak scale. For the SWE, unidimensionality and an internal consistency of α = .92 are reported [64].
Humor was assessed using the trait cheerfulness subscale of the State-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory (STCI) [65], a twenty-particular calibration assessing the three subdimensions of cheerfulness, seriousness, and bad mood as key dispositions for the experience of positive emotion through humour. Responses are scored on a 5-betoken calibration. A validation study corroborates the psychometric quality of the scale [66].
Southwardocial support was recorded using the Fragebogen zur sozialen Unterstützung Kurzform (F-SozU Chiliad-14) [67], a 14-item German scale measuring social support as the subjective appraisement of support and access to resources received from the social environs at the present or in case of demand. Responses are scored on a 5-bespeak scale. The F-SozU M-14 is unidimensional, with a reported internal consistency of α = .94 [67].
Emotion regulation was assessed with the German form of the Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) [68], which records 9 strategies of emotion regulation as cognitive reactions to aversive events and their associated emotions. The strategies tin be categorized into functional or dysfunctional strategies. Positive reappraisal, positive refocusing, putting into perspective, credence and refocusing on planning are considered functional; catastrophizing, cocky-blame, rumination, and other-blame are considered dysfunctional. Each regulation strategy is assessed under iii items, making 27 items in total. Information technology was suggested that the rumination subscale should be eliminated in order to improve psychometric properties, since this subscale cannot be clearly assigned to dysfunctional emotion-regulation strategies (the functional value depends very much on the content of ruminative noesis) [68]. Consequently, this subscale was non utilized for analysis in this study. According to a validation study of the German form, in a clinical sample Cronbach'due south α ranges between .seventy and .84 in the subscales [69].
Neuroticism was recorded using the respective scale of the Big Five Inventory (German short form, BFI-K) [lxx]. The BFI-Thousand is a questionnaire for the brief assessment of the Big Five personality factors, of which we used simply the 4 items measuring neuroticism. Responses are scored on a 5-point scale. The retest reliability for this subscale is r tt = .84; the estimated Cronbach's α for the shortened course of the questionnaire is α = .67 [seventy].
Secondary outcomes
Psychological distress was assessed using the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Calibration (German form, HADS-D) [71], an musical instrument for screening anxiety and depression in primarily somatically ill patients. Each of the 2 scales, feet and depression, comprises 7 items, with a iv-indicate scale to score responses. Reported internal consistency is α = .80 [71]. Several studies accept cast doubt on the ii-factorial construction of the HADS and recommend using the overall score of the scale as a measure of psychological distress instead of anxiety and low [72, 73]; this written report therefore used psychological distress scores.
Quality of life was assessed via 3 visual analogue scales pertaining to concrete, psychological and general well-being (0, very bad– 100, very well). These single-item scales were too used in a prior written report [58]. Since they showed an excellent internal consistency (α = .96), they were combined into ane calibration of quality of life in the current study.
IBS severity was assessed with a German language translation of Irritable Bowel Syndrome—Severity Scoring System (IBS-SSS), a questionnaire for clinical assessment of IBS symptom burden and severity, with higher values representing college symptom burden. This is recommended by the Rome Foundation consensus commission [74] for the cess of the severity and treatment effects in irritable bowel syndrome. The calibration was translated by our grouping for this report. For this purpose, it underwent translation into German, independent back-translation into English, and comparing of both English versions for equality by an English native speaker. A translation into German and validation by another group was published later on [75] and proved to be equivalent. Sound psychometric properties with regard to sensitivity, specificity and reproducibility were reported [75].
Demographic data and additional information
Disease duration (years since onset of IBS) and demographic information such every bit historic period, formal education, and employment condition were collected in this study. Patients were also asked to written report external psychological and/or psychiatric treatment, and medication. Withal, due to restrictions of sample size, we could not command for these factors in the analysis.
Data analysis
Data analysis was performed according to the per-protocol principle using IBM SPSS 22. Statistical procedures included principal component analysis for the construct validation of resilience and to obtain coefficients for the computation of a composite score for resilience. Furthermore, contained and paired t tests, Mann-Whitney U tests, and chi-squared tests were performed. Two-tailed p values and measures of event size (Cohen d) are reported. Not all patients provided complete questionnaires. For unmarried missing values, data were imputed by using the mean score of all item values available for that calibration. If more than 1 item was missing per scale, no imputation was performed and no scale score was computed for that private. The maximum of number of missing scale scores per patient was 2. Approximately 5% of final issue values were thus missing, which is reflected in variations in the degrees of freedom of the corresponding statistical tests. Cross-sectional comparisons were performed with data of n = 37 GHT treated (Grouping A) and north = 37 untreated patients (Group B earlier treatment). These data were pooled for dimensional reduction of resilience domains (Fig ii). Resilience domains and IBS severity data from Grouping A were assessed post GHT; psychological distress and quality of life were assessed pre and post GHT. Additionally, pre and mail service GHT data from due north = xvi patients in Group B who had besides received GHT afterwards on were analysed in longitudinal comparisons. In total, Northward = 74 patients were examined, of which 53 (= 37 + 16) had undergone GHT.
Analyses with longitudinal, cantankerous-sectional and pooled data.
Results
Sample characteristics
Terminal statistical analyses were performed with data from n = 37 treated (Group A) and n = 37 untreated patients (Grouping B), and with northward = 16 follow-up data from treated patients (from Group B). Overall, data of N = 74 individuals was used. The final total sample consisted of 54 (73%) female and xx male person individuals, with a mean age (One thousand ± standard deviation [SD]) of 45 ± 18 years and a hateful disease duration of fourteen ± xiii years. In 55 cases (74%), there was a current or historic diagnosis of a psychological disorder (generally melancholia and feet disorders); 27 (36%) made utilize of further psychological treatments outside the hospital, and nineteen (26%) reported taking antidepressants or anxiolytics.
Baseline patient characteristics of all subgroups that had entered analyses (Grouping A, Group B, the treated subgroup from Group B) and of 30 patients who did non return follow-upward questionnaires are provided in Table 3.
Table three
Baseline characteristics of patient subgroups.
| Group A, n = 37 | Group B, due north = 37 | Subgroup from B who obtained GHT, n = 16 | Invited non-participants, due north = xxx | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age in years | 43 (28–67) | 45 (29–57) | 52 (41–69) | 44 (31–58) |
| Sex male/female | 29/viii | 25/12 | 14/two | 21/9 |
| IBS disease elapsing in years | 8 (v–eighteen) | 10 (4–20) | 11 (9–28) | seven (four–x) |
| Presence of psychological disorder | 26 (70%) | 29 (78%) | 12 (75%) | 13 (43%)* |
| External psychological treatment | 14 (38%) | 13 (35%) | seven (44%) | 15 (l%) |
| Antidepressant intake | x (27%) | 9 (24%) | 5 (31%) | 9 (30%) |
| Psychological distress | 17 (viii–23) | 17 (10–24) | fifteen (10–22) | 14 (10–twenty) |
| Quality of life | 129 (62–160) | 123 (67–140) | 123 (74–146) | 134 (77–166) |
There were no differences in baseline characteristics between whatever of the subgroups, except a significantly lower count of known psychological diagnoses in invited non-participants (Mann-Whitney U tests and chi-squared tests).
Factor assay
Principal component analysis (PCA) was conducted on the 7 resilience domains of the pooled cross-sectional data of the due north = 37 (treated patients; Group A) and n = 37 (patients before treatment; Group B) IBS patients (total N = 74). The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measure indicated that the data were adequate for PCA, KMO = .825. Bartlett's exam of sphericity, χtwo(21) = 272.92, p < .001, indicated that correlations betwixt items were sufficiently large and significant. The analysis yielded a unifactorial solution, with only one cistron ('resilience') having an eigenvalue in a higher place 1 (i.e., three.98), explaining 56.88% of the variance. This result was buttressed by the results of the parallel analysis, which compares the eigenvalues of the observed correlation matrix to the eigenvalues of random correlation matrices with equal numbers of observations and variables. Parallel analysis is one of the most reliable methods to decide the number of factors in PCA [76]. The 95th percentile of the first and second eigenvalues of 1000 random correlation matrices was 1.64 and 1.37, which compares to the kickoff and second eigenvalues of the observed correlation matrix, 3.98 and 0.99. The second eigenvalue of the observed correlation matrix was markedly lower than that at the 95th percentile of random correlation matrices, which strongly suggests a unifactorial solution.
Table 4 shows the factor loadings and regression coefficients obtained from the assay, which were afterward used for the calculation of a weighted resilience score (see beneath). Cadre-resilience as measured by the 10 item CD-RISC displayed the highest factor loading.
Table iv
Resilience domains, PCA gene loadings and regression coefficients.
| Resilience domain | Scale | Gene loading | Regression coefficient |
|---|---|---|---|
| Cadre-resilience | x-item CD-RISC | .904 | .203 |
| Self-efficacy | SWE | .851 | .214 |
| Humour | STCI scale trait cheerfulness | .809 | .203 |
| Neuroticism | BFI-Thou scale neuroticism | -.801 | -.201 |
| Adaptive emotion regulation | CERQ scales acceptance, positive refocussing, planning, putting into perspective, reappraisal | .728 | .183 |
| Dysfunctional emotion regulation | CERQ scales self-blame, catastrophize, and other-blame | -.604 | -.152 |
| Social support | FSozU | .498 | .125 |
Composite measure of resilience
Two composite measures were calculated in order to obtain an integrative mensurate of the different resilience domains. Eq 1 presents a naïve, unweighted composite, that is, positive appraisal domains were summed with a plus sign and absence domains with a minus sign (i.e., subtracted; this approach is also consequent with the signs for loadings in Table iv). Eq ii presents a weighted composite, based on the regression coefficients outputted by PCA (Table four). Applied to standardized variables, Eq two leads to the computation of component scores (i.east., scores that are similar to gene scores in factor analysis) which are weighted sums that are scaled to a mean of 0 and a variance of 1. In the present case, standardization of variables could not be performed, every bit this would have forestalled longitudinal analysis (pre and post scores would by definition each have had a mean of 0). Instead, Eq 2 was applied to the original variables in gild to allow also for longitudinal analysis.
(one)
(2)
Cross-sectional comparisons
Treated patients reported significantly lower IBS severity and psychological distress, and significantly higher quality of life compared to untreated controls. There was a trend to college values in resilience in the patients treated (Table 5).
Table 5
Cross-sectional comparisons between treated patients (Group A) and untreated patients (Group B).
| Group A (post handling; n = 37) | Group B (untreated; due north = 37) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M ± SD | K ± SD | t | df | p | Cohen d | |
| Positive appraisement domains | ||||||
| Core-resilience | 2.23 ± 0.77 | 1.97 ± 0.76 | 1.47 | 70 | .147 | 0.34 |
| Self-efficacy | 2.77 ± 0.59 | 2.61 ± 0.57 | i.13 | 71 | .263 | 0.26 |
| Humor | 2.81 ± 0.64 | ii.62 ± 0.51 | ane.42 | 72 | .161 | 0.33 |
| Adaptive emotion regulation | 3.22 ± 0.81 | 3.05 ± 0.81 | 0.88 | 71 | .382 | 0.20 |
| Social support | 4.00 ± 1.11 | 4.06 ± 0.81 | 0.27 | 72 | .792 | -0.06 |
| Absence resilience domains | ||||||
| Dysfunctional emotion regulation | 2.11 ± 0.65 | 2.40 ± 0.59 | 1.98 | 71 | .051 | -0.46 |
| Neuroticism | 3.27 ± 0.94 | 3.69 ± 0.87 | 1.99 | 72 | .051 | -0.46 |
| Resilience composites | ||||||
| Unweighted resilience | nine.71 ± 4.31 | 8.23 ± 3.34 | one.63 | seventy | .107 | 0.38 |
| Weighted resilience | ane.74 ± 0.78 | 1.45 ± 0.63 | 1.72 | 70 | .090 | 0.40 |
| Secondary outcomes | ||||||
| Psychological distress | 13.27 ± 7.85 | eighteen.71 ± 8.20 | two.88 | 71 | .045* | -0.67 |
| Quality of life | 179.36 ± 78.56 | 114.72 ± 61.12 | iii.89 | 68 | .024* | 0.90 |
| IBS severity | 196.67 ± 117.38 | 304.19 ± 79.57 | iv.55 | lxx | < .001** | -ane.06 |
Longitudinal comparisons
Longitudinal data of resilience and IBS severity was bachelor for xvi patients in Group B. Resilience improved significantly (resilience composites, cocky-efficacy and reduced neuroticism). A parallel decrease in psychological distress, symptom burden and improvement in quality of life was observed. Longitudinal data (incomplete) was also available for psychological distress and quality of life for patients in Group A, with significant decreases in distress and improvements in quality of life (Table 6).
Table 6
Longitudinal comparisons pre-post GHT.
| Pre | Post | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| M ± SD | M ± SD | t | df | p | Cohen d | |
| Positive appraisal domains, Grouping B (northward = 16) | ||||||
| Core-resilience | two.03 ± 0.79 | 2.14 ± 0.79 | 0.78 | 15 | .450 | 0.20 |
| Self-efficacy | 2.64 ± 0.63 | 2.85 ± 0.55 | two.43 | 15 | .028* | 0.61 |
| Humor | 2.57 ± 0.57 | ii.76 ± 0.58 | 1.80 | fifteen | .091 | 0.45 |
| Adaptive emotion regulation | 2.96 ± 0.89 | 3.01 ± 0.98 | 0.35 | fifteen | .733 | 0.09 |
| Social support | 4.03 ± 0.82 | 4.03 ± 0.80 | 0.02 | 15 | .981 | 0.01 |
| Absence resilience domains, Group B (n = 16) | ||||||
| Dysfunctional emotion regulation | 2.26 ± 0.69 | 2.17 ± 0.63 | 0.73 | xv | .476 | -0.eighteen |
| Neuroticism | 3.63 ± 0.76 | three.17 ± 1.04 | ii.70 | 15 | .017* | -0.68 |
| Resilience composites, Group B (n = sixteen) | ||||||
| Unweighted resilience | 8.35 ± 3.74 | nine.44 ± 4.00 | 2.34 | xv | .033* | 0.59 |
| Weighted resilience | 1.47 ± 0.70 | one.69 ± 0.75 | ii.61 | 15 | .020* | 0.65 |
| Secondary outcomes, Grouping B (n = xvi) | ||||||
| Psychological distress | 19.44 ± 7.46 | fifteen.69 ± seven.99 | ii.43 | xv | .028* | -0.61 |
| Quality of life | 131 ± 65 | 180 ± 67 | 2.22 | 13 | .045* | 0.59 |
| IBS severity | 302 ± 74 | 232 ± 96 | 2.35 | xv | .033* | -0.59 |
| Secondary outcomes, Group A (due north = 37) | ||||||
| Psychological distress | 16.32 ± half-dozen.lx | 12.52 ± vi.77 | 3.63 | 27 | .001* | -0.69 |
| Quality of life | 115 ± 55 | 173 ± 74 | iv.56 | 30 | < .001** | 0.82 |
| IBS severity | Non available | 197 ± 117 | - | - | - |
Discussion
This report examined the structure of resilience variables in a sample of individuals suffering from IBS. Seven dissimilar factors of resilience, along with other clinical variables (psychological distress, symptom burden, quality of life), were assessed and used to validate the resilience construct. Based on the data structure observed, a blended mensurate of vii resilience factors was utilized. This composite score of resilience was used to evaluate the effects of gut-directed hypnotherapy, a specific mind-body intervention for irritable bowel syndrome. The 2 master findings of this study were i) the unidimensional structure of resilience and ii) preliminary testify of an improvement in resilience later GHT.
The construction of resilience
A primal problem of resilience inquiry is the juxtaposition and lack of integration of dissimilar resilience factors. In this study, nosotros assessed the structure of 7 important resilience factors in a routine clinical setting and a listen-torso intervention administered inside this setting. It is noteworthy that these resilience factors turned out to share 1 common latent dimension. In our opinion, this does not signify that domains of resilience are redundant; on the contrary, it highlights that resilience relates to a class of interconnected variables, with an essential range of influence for mental health and well-being.
Mental wellness and well-beingness are constituted not only past the presence of resources and positive behaviours, but also by the absence of detrimental and dysfunctional behaviours. It seems useful to consider both sides of the coin, pathology and positive psychology. With the inclusion of 2 variables from a psychopathological background, rather than from a classical resilience arroyo, nosotros expanded the concept of resilience with variables that exert a salutogenetic influence by their absence. We added dysfunctional emotion regulation and neuroticism to the positive resilience variables conviction to accommodate and overcome hardship, self-efficacy, sense of humor/positive emotionality, adaptive emotion regulation and perceived social support in our measurement approach. To some extent this is a departure from the salutogenetic perspective, just the recognition of suppression or absenteeism of negative appraisals and emotion is in line with contempo conceptual developments in resilience inquiry [22].
Furthermore, the results of PCA in this written report provide support for the 10 item-version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale; the high loading on the overall dimension of resilience confirmed that this scale measures important aspects of resilience.
The effects of gut-directed hypnotherapy
As was hypothesized, IBS patients showed an comeback in resilience afterwards gut-directed hypnotherapy. The strongest effects were observed for the composite score of resilience. This was to be expected, as the reliability of an aggregated measure out increases with the number of individual measurements. The strongest effects in private domains were observed with regard to self-efficacy (increased), and neuroticism (decreased). In parallel, improved quality of life and decreased psychological distress and IBS severity were observed. This pattern was significant in the longitudinal data. There were like trends in cantankerous-sectional comparisons between treated and untreated IBS patients.
Every bit a result of the wide class of behaviours and variables affected, an comeback in resilience tin can make a substantial difference to the individual'due south situation. A number of seminal experiments take shown the significance of resilience variables as self-efficacy appraisals for the ability to withstand and cope with aversive situations, and even for pain perception [77, 78]. The marked reductions in symptom severity and psychological distress and improvements in well-being that were observed synchronously with the improvement in resilience in this study strongly support an improvement in successful coping. The improvement of resilience thus seems a likely pathway of activeness of gut-directed hypnotherapy. Notwithstanding, the observations fabricated in this written report are merely correlational and causation by hypnotherapy cannot exist ended. Clearly, direct data from larger samples on the mediating furnishings of increases of resilience by GHT on the reduction of IBS-symptoms are needed.
Limitations and strengths of the study
Limitations of this study are to be seen in the high proportion of missing data and the low rate of response to the survey, especially in patients who had been contacted via post and/or telephone. Even so, baseline analyses provided some assurance against biased characteristics of non-participants. Recruitment stopped before previously calculated sample sizes required for adequate statistical power were accomplished, and due to the study pattern and setting, simply a modest number of subjects provided full longitudinal data. The pocket-sized sample size and lack of power must therefore be considered a limitation of this study. Constraints as well ascend from the relatively large number of patients undergoing external psychotherapy in improver to the study intervention and the intake of antidepressants during the study. The gene assay of resilience was based on a dataset 50% pre- and 50% mail service-hypnotherapy patients, and the sample size was at the lower limit for this kind of analysis. Contained replications of our results with larger sample sizes are therefore needed.
Other important factors of resilience, such as optimism [3], sense of purpose [16], behavioural coping [5] and mindfulness [18] were not taken into account in this study. Nor could disease duration, external psychological and/or psychiatric treatment and medication or demographic variables such as age, formal educational activity and employment status exist controlled for in the analysis. Since in that location were no procedures such as randomization of study subjects, or blinding of investigators, the report does non fulfill avant-garde methodological quality criteria.
On the other hand, strengths of the study are its high degree of ecological validity due to a real-world setting in third care, and the examination of a typical sample of IBS patients with a high psychological brunt. The written report contributed to the integration and validation of resilience, and it illustrates a method of empirically integrating resilience factors by dimensional reduction. Furthermore, it demonstrates the efficacy of gut-directed hypnotherapy, a relatively simple and cost-effective intervention in the highly distressed and health-intendance-using population of IBS patients. Making use of the composite resilience measure, information technology makes a contribution to the issue of pathways of action in this therapy. To our knowledge, later on Lindfors et al.'s study with negative results, this is the first written report yielding evidence of a resilience-enhancing effect of GHT.
Conclusion
The empirically examined resilience domains turned out to be unidimensional, thus all shared a latent dimension of resilience. This reflects the close functional relatedness of resilience domains and emphasizes the significance of this class of variables for well-being and health, every bit a potential treatment goal. The inclusion of 'absence' variables from a psychopathological groundwork, contributing to health and well-beingness by negative manifestation, seems reasonable. Further evaluation of interventions aimed at strengthening psychological resources and resilience is required, likewise as an ongoing integrational endeavour in the field of resilience.
An improvement in resilience occurred in the course of gut-directed hypnotherapy. Further studies are required to confirm the potential function of increased resilience as a pathway of action of hypnotherapy.
Supporting information
S1 Appendix
ClinicalTrials.gov Registration.
(PDF)
S2 Appendix
Written report protocol (High german).
(PDF)
S3 Appendix
Written report protocol (English translation).
(PDF)
S4 Appendix
TREND Checklist.
(PDF)
Acknowledgments
This work was made possible past a psychotherapy and psychosomatics research honor dedicated to the retention of Marianne Ringler (1946–2003). Thanks to Benjamin Block for support with English language linguistic communication.
Funding Statement
The report was supported past the 2014 Marianne Ringler Award for research in psychotherapy and psychosomatics, world wide web.marianneringlerpreis.eu, to JP. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
References
1. Davydov DM, Stewart R, Ritchie K, Chaudieu I. Resilience and mental health. Clin Psychol Rev. 2010;30(5):479–95. 10.1016/j.cpr.2010.03.003 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
2. Wu G, Feder A, Cohen H, Kim JJ, Calderon Southward, Charney DS, et al. Understanding resilience. Front end Behav Neurosci. 2013;7:1–15. 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00001 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
4. Kleiman EM, Chiara AM, Liu RT, Jager-Hyman SG, Choi JY, Alloy LB. Optimism and well-being: A prospective multi-method and multi-dimensional test of optimism as a resilience gene post-obit the occurrence of stressful life events. Cognition and Emotion. 2017;31(2):269–83. x.1080/02699931.2015.1108284 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
half-dozen. Kennedy P, Kilvert A, Hasson 50. A 21-year longitudinal assay of impact, coping, and appraisals following spinal cord injury. Rehabil Psychol. 2016;61(i):92 ten.1037/rep0000066 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
7. Penedo FJ, Dahn JR. Practice and well-being: a review of mental and physical health benefits associated with physical action. Curr Opin Psychiatr. 2005;xviii(2):189–93. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
viii. Hegberg NJ, Tone EB. Physical activity and stress resilience: Because those at-risk for developing mental health problems. Mental Health and Physical Activity. 2015;8:ane–seven. [Google Scholar]
9. Burns AB, Brown JS, Sachs-Ericsson Northward, Constitute EA, Curtis JT, Fredrickson BL, et al. Upward spirals of positive emotion and coping: Replication, extension, and initial exploration of neurochemical substrates. Pers Individ Dif. 2008;44(2):360–70. x.1016/j.paid.2007.08.015 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
x. Edwards KR, Martin RA. The Conceptualization, Measurement, and Part of Humour equally a Grapheme Strength in Positive Psychology. Eur J Psychol. 2014;ten(3):505–19. x.5964/ejop.v10i3.759 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
11. Sheppes M, Suri G, Gross JJ. Emotion regulation and psychopathology. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2015;11:379–405. ten.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032814-112739 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
12. Schwarzer R, editor. Cocky-efficacy: Idea control of action. New York: Routledge; 2014. [Google Scholar]
13. Bryant RA, Guthrie RM. Maladaptive self-appraisals earlier trauma exposure predict posttraumatic stress disorder. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2007;75(5):812–5. 10.1037/0022-006X.75.5.812 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
14. Charuvastra A, Cloitre M. Social bonds and posttraumatic stress disorder. Annu Rev Psychol. 2008;59:301–28. 10.1146/annurev.psych.58.110405.085650 [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xv. Karreman A, Vingerhoets AJ. Attachment and well-being: The mediating role of emotion regulation and resilience. Pers Individ Dif. 2012;53(7):821–half dozen. 10.1016/j.paid.2012.06.014 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
16. Ryff CD. Psychological well-being revisited: Advances in the scientific discipline and practice of eudaimonia. Psychother Psychosom. 2014;83(1):ten–28. 10.1159/000353263 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
17. Bryant-Davis T, Wong EC. Faith to move mountains: Religious coping, spirituality, and interpersonal trauma recovery. Am Psychol. 2013;68(8):675–84. ten.1037/a0034380 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xviii. Thompson RW, Arnkoff DB, Glass CR. Conceptualizing mindfulness and acceptance every bit components of psychological resilience to trauma. Trauma Violence Corruption. 2011;12(4):220–35. 10.1177/1524838011416375 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
19. Koenen KC, Moffitt TE, Roberts AL, Martin LT, Kubzansky L, Harrington H, et al. Childhood IQ and adult mental disorders: a exam of the cognitive reserve hypothesis. Am J Psychiatry. 2009;166(1):50–seven. 10.1176/appi.ajp.2008.08030343 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xx. Moffitt TE, Arseneault Fifty, Belsky D, Dickson N, Hancox RJ, Harrington H, et al. A slope of babyhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proc Natl Acad Sci U Southward A. 2011;108(seven):2693–8. 10.1073/pnas.1010076108 [PMC complimentary article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
21. Leppin AL, Bora PR, Tilburt JC, Gionfriddo MR, Zeballos-Palacios C, Dulohery MM, et al. The efficacy of resiliency training programs: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. PLoS One. 2014;ix(10):e111420 10.1371/periodical.pone.0111420 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
22. Kalisch R, Müller MB, Tüscher O. A conceptual framework for the neurobiological study of resilience. Behav Encephalon Sci. 2015;38:e92 10.1017/S0140525X1400082X [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
23. McEwen BS, Gray JD, Nasca C. Recognizing resilience: Learning from the effects of stress on the brain. Neurobiol Stress. 2015;one:one–xi. 10.1016/j.ynstr.2014.09.001 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
24. Osório C, Probert T, Jones Eastward, Young AH, Robbins I. Adapting to stress: agreement the neurobiology of resilience. Behav Med. 2016:1–16. [Google Scholar]
25. Richardson GE. The metatheory of resilience and resiliency. J Clin Psychol. 2002;58(three):307–21. 10.1002/jclp.10020 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
26. Aldinger Thou, Stopsack M, Ulrich I, Appel K, Reinelt Due east, Wolff S, et al. Neuroticism developmental courses-implications for low, anxiety and everyday emotional experience; a prospective study from boyhood to immature machismo. BMC Psychiatry. 2014;14(ane):210–iii. x.1186/s12888-014-0210-2 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
27. Stewart DE, Yuen T. A systematic review of resilience in the physically ill. Psychosomatics. 2011;52(iii):199–209. 10.1016/j.psym.2011.01.036 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
28. Frank L, Kleinman Fifty, Rentz A, Ciesla One thousand, Kim JJ, Zacker C. Wellness-related quality of life associated with irritable bowel syndrome: comparison with other chronic diseases. Clin Ther. 2002;24(iv):675–89. ten.1016/S0149-2918(02)85143-8 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
29. Nguyen V, Shih W, Presson A, Naliboff BD, Kilpatrick LA, Gupta A, et al. Mo1616 Resilience Is Decreased in Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS) and Associated With Poorer Quality of Life and Greater Symptom Severity. Gastroenterology. 2016;150(4):S731. [Google Scholar]
thirty. Park S, Naliboff B, Shih W, Presson A, Videlock Eastward, Ju T, et al. Resilience is decreased in irritable bowel syndrome and associated with symptoms and cortisol response. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2017:e13155 10.1111/nmo.13155 [PMC gratis article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
31. Ben-Ezra M, Hamama-Raz Y, Palgi S, Palgi Y. Cognitive appraisement and psychological distress among patients with irritable bowel syndrome. The Israel periodical of psychiatry and related sciences. 2014;52(1):54–9. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
32. Stanculete MF, Matu South, Pojoga C, Dumitrascu DL. Coping strategies and irrational beliefs equally mediators of the health-related quality of life impairments in irritable bowel syndrome. J Gastrointestin Liver Dis. 2015;24(2):159–64. doi: ten.15403/jgld.2014.1121.242.strt [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
33. Porcelli P, De Carne 1000, Leandro K. The role of alexithymia and gastrointestinal-specific feet as predictors of treatment result in irritable bowel syndrome. Compr Psychiatry. 2017;73:127–35. x.1016/j.comppsych.2016.11.010 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
34. Kennedy PJ, Clarke K, Quigley EM, Groeger JA, Dinan TG, Cryan JF. Gut memories: towards a cognitive neurobiology of irritable bowel syndrome. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2012;36(1):310–twoscore. x.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.07.001 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
35. Kennedy P, Cryan J, Quigley East, Dinan T, Clarke G. A sustained hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal centrality response to astute psychosocial stress in irritable bowel syndrome. Psychol Med. 2014;44(14):3123–34. 10.1017/S003329171400052X [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
36. Whitehead WE, Palsson O, Jones KR. Systematic review of the comorbidity of irritable bowel syndrome with other disorders: what are the causes and implications? Gastroenterology. 2002;122(4):1140–56. x.1053/gast.2002.32392 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
37. Mayer EA, Savidge T, Shulman RJ. Brain–gut microbiome interactions and functional bowel disorders. Gastroenterology. 2014;146(6):1500–12. x.1053/j.gastro.2014.02.037 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
38. Moloney RD, Johnson AC, O'Mahony SM, Dinan TG, Meerveld GV, Cryan JF. Stress and the Microbiota–Gut–Encephalon Axis in Visceral Pain: Relevance to Irritable Bowel Syndrome. CNS Neurosci Ther. 2016;22(2):102–17. ten.1111/cns.12490 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
39. Kennedy P, Cryan J, Dinan T, Clarke Thousand. Kynurenine pathway metabolism and the microbiota-gut-brain axis. Neuropharmacology. 2016:399–412. 10.1016/j.neuropharm.2016.07.002 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
xl. Stahl JE, Dossett ML, LaJoie AS, Denninger JW, Mehta DH, Goldman R, et al. Relaxation response and resiliency preparation and its effect on healthcare resource utilization. PLoS 1. 2015;ten(10):e0140212 10.1371/journal.pone.0140212 [PMC costless article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
41. Canavan C, Due west J, Menu T. Review article: the economic bear on of the irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2014;40(9):1023–34. 10.1111/apt.12938 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
42. Weinland SR, Morris CB, Dalton C, Hu Y, Whitehead WE, Toner BB, et al. Cognitive factors affect treatment response to medical and psychological treatments in functional bowel disorders. Am J Gastroenterol. 2010;105(6):1397–406. 10.1038/ajg.2009.748 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
43. Spiller R, Aziz Q, Creed F, Emmanuel A, Houghton L, Hungin P, et al. Guidelines on the irritable bowel syndrome: mechanisms and applied management. Gut. 2007;56(12):1770–98. 10.1136/gut.2007.119446 [PMC gratuitous article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
44. Ford AC, Quigley EM, Lacy BE, Lembo AJ, Saito YA, Schiller LR, et al. Event of antidepressants and psychological therapies, including hypnotherapy, in irritable bowel syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2014;109:1350–65. 10.1038/ajg.2014.148 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
45. Peters S, Muir J, Gibson P. Review article: gut‐directed hypnotherapy in the direction of irritable bowel syndrome and inflammatory bowel disease. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2015;41(11):1104–15. ten.1111/apt.13202 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
46. Schaefert R, Klose P, Moser One thousand, Häuser W. Efficacy, tolerability, and safety of hypnosis in adult irritable bowel syndrome: systematic review and meta-analysis. Psychosom Med. 2014;76(five):389–98. 10.1097/PSY.0000000000000039 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
47. Mawdsley JE, Jenkins DG, Macey MG, Langmead L, Rampton DS. The effect of hypnosis on systemic and rectal mucosal measures of inflammation in ulcerative colitis. Am J Gastroenterol. 2008;103(six):1460–9. 10.1111/j.1572-0241.2008.01845.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
48. Whorwell PJ. Hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome: the response of colonic and noncolonic symptoms. J Psychosom Res. 2008;64(6):621–3. 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2008.02.022 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
49. Palsson OS, Turner MJ, Johnson DA, Burnett CK, Whitehead WE. Hypnosis handling for severe irritable bowel syndrome: investigation of mechanism and effects on symptoms. Dig Dis Sci. 2002;47(11):2605–14. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
50. Lea R, Houghton L, Calvert East, Larder South, Gonsalkorale West, Whelan 5, et al. Gut‐focused hypnotherapy normalizes disordered rectal sensitivity in patients with irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2003;17(5):635–42. 10.1046/j.1365-2036.2003.01486.x [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
51. Vlieger AM, Rutten JM, Govers AM, Frankenhuis C, Benninga MA. Long-term follow-up of gut-directed hypnotherapy vs. standard intendance in children with functional abdominal pain or irritable bowel syndrome. Am J Gastroenterol. 2012;107(iv):627–31. 10.1038/ajg.2011.487 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
52. Gonsalkorale WM, Toner BB, Whorwell PJ. Cognitive change in patients undergoing hypnotherapy for irritable bowel syndrome. J Psychosom Res. 2004;56(3):271–eight. x.1016/S0022-3999(03)00076-X [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
53. Lowén MB, Mayer EA, Sjöberg G, Tillisch One thousand, Naliboff B, Labus J, et al. Effect of hypnotherapy and educational intervention on brain response to visceral stimulus in the irritable bowel syndrome. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2013;37(12):1184–97. x.1111/apt.12319 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
54. Lindfors P, Ljótsson B, Bjornsson E, Abrahamsson H, Simrén One thousand. Patient satisfaction afterwards gut‐directed hypnotherapy in irritable bowel syndrome. Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;25(2):169–86. 10.1111/nmo.12022 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
55. Antonovsky A. The structure and properties of the sense of coherence calibration. Soc Sci Med. 1993;36(6):725–33. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
56. Almedom AM. Resilience, hardiness, sense of coherence, and posttraumatic growth: all paths leading to "calorie-free at the stop of the tunnel"? Journal of Loss and Trauma. 2005;10(3):253–65. [Google Scholar]
57. Olden KW. Approach to the patient with severe, refractory irritable bowel syndrome. Current treatment options in gastroenterology. 2003;6(four):311–7. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
58. Moser G, Trägner S, Gajowniczek EE, Mikulits A, Michalski M, Kazemi-Shirazi Fifty, et al. Long-term success of GUT-directed group hypnosis for patients with refractory irritable bowel syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Am J Gastroenterol. 2013;108(four):602–9. 10.1038/ajg.2013.19 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
59. Gonsalkorale WM. Gut-directed hypnotherapy: the Manchester approach for treatment of irritable bowel syndrome. Int J Clin Exp Hypn. 2006;54(1):27–50. x.1080/00207140500323030 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
60. Tran U.s.a., Glück TM, Lueger-Schuster B. Influence of personal and environmental factors on mental health in a sample of Austrian survivors of World War Two with regard to PTSD: is information technology resilience? BMC Psychiatry. 2013;13(1):47. [PMC costless commodity] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
61. Windle 1000, Bennett KM, Noyes J. A methodological review of resilience measurement scales. Wellness and quality of life outcomes. 2011;nine(8):1–eighteen. 10.1186/1477-7525-nine-8 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
62. Sarubin N, Gutt D, Giegling I, Buehner Chiliad, Hilbert S, Kraehenmann O, et al. Kickoff Assay of the 10-and 25-Item German Version of the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC) Regarding Psychometric Properties and Components. ZEITSCHRIFT FUR GESUNDHEITSPSYCHOLOGIE. 2015;23(3):112–22. [Google Scholar]
63. Schwarzer R, Jerusalem M. Skalen zur Erfassung von Lehrer-und Schülermerkmalen. Berlin: Freie Universität Berlin; 1999. [Google Scholar]
64. Hinz A, Schumacher J, Albani C, Schmid G, Brähler E. Bevölkerungsrepräsentative Normierung der Skala zur Allgemeinen Selbstwirksamkeitserwartung. Diagnostica. 2006;52(1):26–32. [Google Scholar]
65. Ruch W, Köhler G, Van Thriel C. Assessing the" humorous temperament": Construction of the facet and standard trait forms of the State-Trait-Cherrfulness-Inventory–STCI. Humor. 1996;9(3/4):303–39. [Google Scholar]
66. Carretero-Dios H, Eid G, Ruch Due west. Analyzing multitrait-mulitmethod data with multilevel confirmatory factor analysis: An application to the validation of the Land-Trait Cheerfulness Inventory. Journal of Enquiry in Personality. 2011;45(2):153–64. [Google Scholar]
67. Fydrich T, Sommer G, Tydecks S, Brähler E. Fragebogen zur sozialen unterstützung (F-SozU): Normierung der Kurzform (K-14). Z Med Psychol. 2009;18(1):43–8. [Google Scholar]
68. Loch Due north, Hiller W, Witthöft M. Der cognitive emotion regulation questionnaire (CERQ). Z Klin Psychol Psychother. 2011;40(ii):94–106. ten.1026/1616-3443/a000079 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
69. Görgen SM, Loch Due north, Hiller W, Witthöft M. Kognitive Emotionsregulation und Psychopathologie: erste teststatistische Untersuchung des deutschen Cognitive Emotion Regulation Questionnaire (CERQ) in einer klinischen Stichprobe. Zeitschrift für Psychiatrie, Psychologie und Psychotherapie. 2015. [Google Scholar]
70. Rammstedt B, John OP. Kurzversion des Big Five Inventory (BFI-G). Diagnostica. 2005;51(iv):195–206. [Google Scholar]
71. Herrmann-Lingen C, Buss U, Snaith P. Hospital Feet and Depression Calibration-Deutsche Version (HADS-D): Huber; 2011. [Google Scholar]
72. Iani Fifty, Lauriola M, Costantini M. A confirmatory bifactor analysis of the hospital feet and depression scale in an Italian community sample. Wellness and quality of life outcomes. 2014;12(84):1–8. 10.1186/1477-7525-12-84 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
73. Hinz A, Brähler E. Normative values for the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) in the full general German population. J Psychosom Res. 2011;71(2):74–8. ten.1016/j.jpsychores.2011.01.005 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
74. Spiegel B, Camilleri M, Bolus R, Andresen V, Chey WD, Fehnel Southward, et al. Psychometric evaluation of patient-reported outcomes in irritable bowel syndrome randomized controlled trials: a Rome Foundation report. Gastroenterology. 2009;137(vi):1944–53. e3. 10.1053/j.gastro.2009.08.047 [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
75. Betz C, Mannsdörfer K, Bischoff S. Validation of the IBS-SSS. Z Gastroenterol. 2013;51(x):1171–6. 10.1055/s-0033-1335260 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
76. Zwick WR, Velicer WF. Comparing of 5 rules for determining the number of components to retain. Psychol Balderdash. 1986;99(3):432. [Google Scholar]
77. Litt MD. Self-efficacy and perceived command: cerebral mediators of hurting tolerance. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;54(1):149–60. ten.1037/0022-3514.54.1.149 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
78. Pulvers K, Hood A. The role of positive traits and hurting catastrophizing in pain perception. Curr Hurting Headache Rep. 2013;17(5):1–11. 10.1007/s11916-013-0330-2 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Articles from PLoS 1 are provided here courtesy of Public Library of Science
Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6231615/
0 Response to "Hilbert C Zeballos Md 5 / 5 1 Review"
Post a Comment