| Literature DB >> 26322714 |
Martina Di Simplicio1, Emily A Holmes2, Clare J Rathbone3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Bipolar Spectrum Disorder (BPSD) is associated with changes in self-related processing and affect, yet the relationship between self-image and affect in the BPSD phenotype is unclear.Entities:
Keywords: Anxiety; Bipolar disorder; Hypomania; Identity; Mood; Prospection; Self-image
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26322714 PMCID: PMC4595481 DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2015.08.042
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Affect Disord ISSN: 0165-0327 Impact factor: 4.839
Participant demographics and mean self-image valence, stability and certainty subscale scores.
| Age | 23.43 (4.62) | 22.46 (5.30) | 0.67 | / |
| Female: Male | 15: 8 | 16: 8 | / | / |
| Years of education | 16.22 (2.34) | 16.08 (2.70) | 0.18 | / |
| QIDS | 2.26 (2.05) | 6.83 (5.26) | 3.96 | −1.03 |
| STAI-S | 30.00 (9.53) | 35.08 (11.99) | 1.61 | −0.46 |
| ASRM | 1.00 (1.31) | 4.17 (2.57) | 5.36 | −1.55 |
| Current self-image valence | 73.79 (12.68) | 66.70 (11.89) | 1.98 | 0.57 |
| Future self-image valence | 84.24 (11.30) | 82.98 (11.14) | 0.39 | 0.11 |
| Current positive self-image stability | 82.55(7.24) | 79.03 (10.17) | 1.36 | 0.39 |
| Current negative self-image stability | 65.61 (20.63) | 67.81 (13.58) | −0.35 | −0.12 |
| Future positive self-image stability | 78.79 (10.78) | 78.04 (10.52) | 0.24 | 0.07 |
| Future negative self-image stability | 64.44 (15.03) | 58.89 (19.17) | 0.42 | 0.32 |
| Future positive self-image certainty | 74.84 (10.76) | 72.37 (12.10) | 0.74 | 0.21 |
| Future negative self-image certainty | 73.33 (15.28) | 62.50 (14.67) | 1.03 | 0.72 |
Note. Degrees of freedom were 45 for all scores apart from QIDS (30.1) and ASRM (34.6) following correction for equality of variances (Levene's test)
p<.05.
p<.001.
Hierarchical regression analyses.
| Response variable | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Predictor variables | Valence of current self-image | Stability of negative current self-image | Certainty of positive future self-image |
| Standardised Betas | |||
| Model 1: | |||
| QIDS | −381 | −0.216 | −338 |
| STAI-S | −318 | 0.460 | −0.193 |
| ASRM | 0.197 | −0.044 | 0.304 |
| Model 2: | |||
| QIDS×Group | 0.122 | −0.449 | −0.204 |
| STAI-S×Group | 0.097 | −476 | 0.065 |
| ASRM×Group | 0.033 | −719 | 0.385 |
Note. Group=high MQD versus low MDQ. Grand mean-centred scores were used. All regressions (separate regressions for each potential interaction (a, b, c) included a first step, Model 1, and a second step, Model 2. Model 2 analysed each potential interaction (a, b, c) by adding the interaction term to the Model 1, plus Group, predictors (Model 2). As the purpose of the Model 2 regressions was to investigate potential interactions between Group and Mood, only these regression coefficients are reported here. For valence of current self-image, Model 1: F=6.61, p=.001; Model 2: QIDS×Group F=4.47, p=.002; STAI-S×Group F=4.48, p=.002; ASRM×Group F=4.34, p=.002; For stability of negative current self-image Model 1 F=1.79, p=.17; Model 2: QIDS×Group F=1.83, p=.138; STAI-S×Group F=2.72, p=.039; ASRM×Group F=3.16, p=.021; For certainty of positive future self-image Model 1: F=3.57, p=.020; Model 2: QIDS×Group F=2.47, p=.045; STAI-S×Group F=2.25, p=.064; ASRM×Group F=3.39, p=.011.
p<.05.
p<.01.