| Literature DB >> 27547220 |
Yiping Chen1, Caihua Wang2, Jinyu Wang3, Leilei Zheng1, Weibo Liu1, Huichun Li1, Shaohua Yu1, Bin Pan1, Hualiang Yu1, Risheng Yu4.
Abstract
This study was to investigate the association of psychological characteristics and functional dyspepsia treatment outcome. 109 patients who met the criteria for FD were enrolled. Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQ), Symptom Checklist 90 (SCL90), and the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index (PSQI) were used to measure personality, psychological symptoms, and sleep quality in our patients. Leeds Dyspepsia Questionnaire (LDQ) was used to assess dyspeptic symptoms at baseline and after eight weeks of treatment. The LDQ scores change after therapy, and the degraded rate of LDQ was used to assess the prognosis of patients. Logistic regression model was used to assess the effect of the personality, psychological symptoms, and sleep quality on the prognosis of patients. Our result revealed that poor sleep quality (OR = 7.68, 95% CI 1.83-32.25) and bad marriage status (OR = 1.22, 95% CI 1.10-1.36) had the negative effect on the prognosis of FD, while extroversion in personality traits (OR = 0.86, 95% CI 0.76-0.96) had positive effect on the prognosis of FD. We should pay attention to the sleep quality, the personality, and the marriage status of FD patients; psychological intervention may have benefit in refractory FD.Entities:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27547220 PMCID: PMC4980513 DOI: 10.1155/2016/5984273
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Gastroenterol Res Pract ISSN: 1687-6121 Impact factor: 2.260
Demographic characteristics of Chinese FD patients.
| Improvement ( | Nonimprovement ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Age (years) | 47.14 ± 11.79 | 47.82 ± 11.11 | −0.30 | 0.763 |
| Gender | 0.22 | 0.637 | ||
| Male | 15 (35.71) | 21 (31.34) | ||
| Female | 27 (64.29) | 46 (68.66) | ||
| BMI | 2.07 | 0.355 | ||
| <18.5 | 5 (11.90) | 12 (17.91) | ||
| 18.5–25 | 35 (83.33) | 48 (71.64) | ||
| >25 | 2 (4.76) | 7 (10.45) | ||
| Marriage status | 8.00 |
| ||
| Good marriage | 39 (92.86) | 47 (70.15) | ||
| Others | 3 (7.14) | 20 (29.85) | ||
| Occupation | 0.35 | 0.553 | ||
| Employed | 25 (59.52) | 36 (53.73) | ||
| Others | 17 (40.48) | 31 (46.27) | ||
| Education level | 0.02 | 0.883 | ||
| Lower than high school | 27 (64.29) | 44 (65.67) | ||
| High school and above | 15 (35.71) | 23 (34.33) |
The comparison of psychological status in different prognosis groups patients.
| Psychological status | Improvement ( | Nonimprovement ( |
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SCL90 | F1 | 1.71 ± 0.55 | 2.13 ± 0.64 | −3.47 |
|
| F2 | 1.56 ± 0.47 | 1.95 ± 0.67 | −3.27 |
| |
| F3 | 1.33 ± 0.49 | 1.70 ± 0.63 | −3.27 |
| |
| F4 | 1.50 ± 0.47 | 1.94 ± 0.68 | −3.69 |
| |
| F5 | 1.54 ± 0.62 | 1.91 ± 0.57 | −3.15 |
| |
| F6 | 1.50 ± 0.57 | 1.69 ± 0.62 | −1.56 | 0.122 | |
| F7 | 1.21 ± 0.31 | 1.54 ± 0.58 | −3.40 |
| |
| F8 | 1.38 ± 0.52 | 1.62 ± 0.57 | −2.18 |
| |
| F9 | 1.38 ± 0.40 | 1.59 ± 0.53 | −2.11 |
| |
|
| |||||
| EPQ |
| 5.19 ± 1.85 | 5.28 ± 2.18 | −0.23 | 0.819 |
|
| 10.55 ± 4.62 | 7.64 ± 3.91 | 3.52 |
| |
|
| 10.33 ± 5.50 | 13.37 ± 5.70 | −2.75 |
| |
|
| |||||
| PSQI total score | 6.69 ± 3.89 | 11.09 ± 5.24 | −4.69 |
| |
Notes. SCL90: symptom checklist 90; F1: psychotic somatization; F2: obsessive-compulsive symptoms; F3: interpersonal sensitivity; F4: depression; F5: anxiety; F6: hostility; F7: terror; F8: phobic anxiety; F9: psychoticism; EPQ: Eysenck Personality Questionnaire; E: extroversion, N: neuroticism; P: psychoticism; and PSQI: Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index.
The multivariate logistic regression model of the influence factors of FD prognosis.
| B | SE | OR | 95% CI |
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marriage (others versus good marriage) | 2.04 | 0.73 | 7.68 | 1.83–32.25 |
|
| PSQI total score | 0.20 | 0.06 | 1.22 | 1.10–1.36 |
|
| EPQ | −0.15 | 0.06 | 0.86 | 0.76–0.96 |
|