OBJECTIVE: Type D personality predicts poor prognosis in coronary heart disease (CHD) but little is known about Type D in non-Western cultures. We examined the (a) validity of the Type D construct and its assessment with the DS14 scale in the Chinese culture, (b) prevalence of Type D, and (c) gender vs. Type D discrepancies in depression/anxiety, among Chinese patients with CHD. METHOD: Patients with CHD (N=326) completed the Chinese version of the DS14. The NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Stress Symptom Checklist (SSC) were administered to subsamples to establish construct and discriminant validity. Administration of the DS14, HADS, and SSC was repeated at 1 month after hospital discharge in 66 patients, and stability of the DS14 was examined in another subsample of 100 patients. RESULTS: The theoretical structure of the Type D construct in the Chinese culture was supported (chi(2)/df=2.89, root mean square error of approximation=0.08, normal fit index=0.91, non-normal fit index=0.91, comparative fit index=0.93). The Negative Affectivity (NA) and Social Inhibition (SI) subscales of the DS14 in the entire sample were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha=0.89/0.81), measured stable traits (3-month test-retest ICC=0.76/0.74), and correlated significantly with the neuroticism (NA/neuroticism, r=0.78, P<.001) and extraversion subscales (SI/extraversion, r=-0.64, P<.001) of the NEO-FFI, respectively. The prevalence of Type D personality was 31%. Type D was not related to transient emotional states. However, Chinese patients with a Type D personality were at increased concurrent risk of anxiety (P=.002) and depression (P=.016). CONCLUSION: Type D personality is a cross-culturally valid construct, is associated with an increased risk of anxiety and depression, and deserves prompt attention in estimating the prognostic risk of Chinese CHD patients. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
OBJECTIVE: Type D personality predicts poor prognosis in coronary heart disease (CHD) but little is known about Type D in non-Western cultures. We examined the (a) validity of the Type D construct and its assessment with the DS14 scale in the Chinese culture, (b) prevalence of Type D, and (c) gender vs. Type D discrepancies in depression/anxiety, among Chinese patients with CHD. METHOD:Patients with CHD (N=326) completed the Chinese version of the DS14. The NEO Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI), Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and Stress Symptom Checklist (SSC) were administered to subsamples to establish construct and discriminant validity. Administration of the DS14, HADS, and SSC was repeated at 1 month after hospital discharge in 66 patients, and stability of the DS14 was examined in another subsample of 100 patients. RESULTS: The theoretical structure of the Type D construct in the Chinese culture was supported (chi(2)/df=2.89, root mean square error of approximation=0.08, normal fit index=0.91, non-normal fit index=0.91, comparative fit index=0.93). The Negative Affectivity (NA) and Social Inhibition (SI) subscales of the DS14 in the entire sample were internally consistent (Cronbach's alpha=0.89/0.81), measured stable traits (3-month test-retest ICC=0.76/0.74), and correlated significantly with the neuroticism (NA/neuroticism, r=0.78, P<.001) and extraversion subscales (SI/extraversion, r=-0.64, P<.001) of the NEO-FFI, respectively. The prevalence of Type D personality was 31%. Type D was not related to transient emotional states. However, Chinese patients with a Type D personality were at increased concurrent risk of anxiety (P=.002) and depression (P=.016). CONCLUSION: Type D personality is a cross-culturally valid construct, is associated with an increased risk of anxiety and depression, and deserves prompt attention in estimating the prognostic risk of Chinese CHD patients. Copyright 2010 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Authors: M N A Al-Qezweny; E M W J Utens; K Dulfer; B A F Hazemeijer; R-J van Geuns; J Daemen; R van Domburg Journal: Neth Heart J Date: 2016-09 Impact factor: 2.380