| Literature DB >> 35955070 |
Shengyingjie Liu1, Huai Yang2, Min Cheng3, Tianchang Miao3.
Abstract
Cyberchondria has become a severe health problem and a significant public concern. In addition to the impacts that cyberchondria involves, individual psychological and behavioral factors have been identified. However, the role of family function and the mediating and moderating mechanisms underlying these relations are not understood well, especially among adolescents. Based on family functioning and cognitive-behavioral theory, this study sought to examine whether family dysfunction was associated with cyberchondria, and a moderated mediation model was prepared as a means of exploring whether health anxiety was a mediator of relationships between family dysfunction and cyberchondria, as well as whether optimism moderated these mediating processes. A total of 2074 Chinese adolescents (mean = 15.08 years, SD = 1.79) reported their demographic information, family dysfunction, health anxiety, optimism, and cyberchondria. The findings showed that family dysfunction was positively related to cyberchondria. Moreover, health anxiety partially mediated the relationship between family dysfunction and cyberchondria. Finally, optimism moderated the interplay among health anxiety and cyberchondria. Consistent with the expectancy-value models, this positive relationship was weaker for adolescents with a higher level of optimism. These results suggest that it is vital to simultaneously consider individual and family factors as a means of understanding adolescent cyberchondria when performing cyberchondria intervention programs.Entities:
Keywords: cyberchondria; family dysfunction; health anxiety; moderated mediation; optimism
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35955070 PMCID: PMC9368117 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph19159716
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 4.614
Figure 1Conceptual model.
Figure 2The final moderated mediation model. Note. Standardized coefficients are reported with standard errors in parentheses. Participants’ grades, family structure, SES, and BMI, as well as OHR, were controlled. *** p < 0.001.
Means, standard deviations, and t-tests of main variables.
| Total | Gender | Only Kid | Residence | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sample | Female | Male |
| Only One | More than One |
| Urban | Rural |
| |
| M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | M (SD) | ||||
| FD | 1.99 (0.48) | 1.98 (0.49) | 2.01 (0.46) | 1.19 | 1.99 (0.47) | 2.00 (0.50) | 0.52 | 1.97 (0.49) | 2.02 (0.47) | 2.19 * |
| HA | 1.86 (0.43) | 1.85 (0.40) | 1.88 (0.46) | 1.97 * | 1.86 (0.42) | 1.86 (0.45) | 0.04 | 1.86 (0.44) | 1.87 (0.42) | 0.54 |
| OP | 3.59 (0.58) | 3.61 (0.58) | 3.56 (0.57) | 1.97 * | 3.60 (0.57) | 3.57 (0.59) | 0.85 | 3.58 (0.58) | 3.59 (0.57) | 0.30 |
| CC | 2.15 (0.79) | 2.12 (0.72) | 2.18 (0.85) | 1.87 | 2.14 (0.78) | 2.16 (0.80) | 0.53 | 2.16 (0.77) | 2.14(0.80) | 0.70 |
Note. N = 2074. FD = Family Dysfunction, HA = Health Anxiety, OP = Optimism, CC = Cyberchondria. Gender was dummy-coded as 0 = Female and 1 = Male; Only Kid was dummy coded with such that 0 = Only one kid and 1 = More than one kid; Residence was dummy-coded with such that 0 = Urban and 1 = Rural. * p < 0.05.
Descriptive statistics and between-variable correlations.
| Variables | M (SD) | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Grade | - | - | ||||||||
| 2. Family structure | - | −0.01 | - | |||||||
| 3. Socioeconomic status | - | 0.16 *** | 0.00 | - | ||||||
| 4. BMI | 19.91 (3.43) | 0.17 *** | −0.03 | 0.04 | - | |||||
| 5. OHR | 2.69 (1.21) | 0.00 | −0.02 | 0.01 | 0.00 | - | ||||
| 6. FD | 1.99 (0.48) | −0.03 | −0.04 * | −0.13 *** | 0.01 | −0.01 | - | |||
| 7. HA | 1.86 (0.43) | 0.04 | −0.02 | −0.03 | −0.02 | 0.33 *** | 0.24 *** | - | ||
| 8. OP | 3.59 (0.58) | 0.02 | 0.04 | 0.08 *** | −0.02 | 0.00 | −0.39 *** | −0.23 *** | - | |
| 9. CC | 2.15 (0.79) | 0.06 ** | −0.05 * | 0.03 | 0.02 | 0.52 *** | 0.15 *** | 0.68 *** | −0.17 *** | - |
Note. N = 2074. Correlations are presented below the diagonal. BMI = Body Mass Index, OHR = Online Health Research, FD = Family Dysfunction, HA = Health Anxiety, OP = Optimism, CC = Cyberchondria. Grade was coded as 0 = Junior and 1 = Senior; Family structure was coded as 0 = non-intact family and 1 = intact family. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
The Mediation Effects of Family Dysfunction on Cyberchondria.
| Predictors | Model 1 (HA) | Model 2 (CC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | SE |
| 95%CI | β | SE |
| 95% CI | |
| Grade | 0.11 | 0.04 | 2.55 * | [0.03, 0.20] | 0.07 | 0.03 | 2.13 * | [0.00, 0.13] |
| Family structure | −0.02 | 0.07 | −0.30 | [−0.15, 0.11] | −0.10 | 0.05 | −1.97 * | [0.20, 0.00] |
| Socioeconomic status | −0.01 | 0.02 | −0.25 | [−0.05, 0.04] | 0.04 | 0.02 | 2.42 * | [0.01, 0.07] |
| BMI | −0.04 | 0.02 | −1.76 | [−0.08, 0.00] | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.34 | [−0.01, 0.05] |
| OHR | 0.33 | 0.02 | 16.59 *** | [0.29, 0.37] | 0.33 | 0.02 | 21.23 *** | [0.30, 0.36] |
| FD | 0.24 | 0.02 | 11.92 *** | [0.20, 0.28] | 0.03 | 0.02 | 2.04 * | [0.01, 0.06] |
| HA | 0.56 | 0.02 | 34.85 *** | [0.53, 0.59] | ||||
| R2 | 0.17 | 0.56 | ||||||
| 70.38 *** | 372.48 *** | |||||||
Note. All continuous independent variables were standardized prior to analysis. Model 1 for Health Anxiety. Model 2 for Cyberchondria. The beta values are standardized coefficients. CI = [LLCI, ULCI], i.e., lower and upper limit of the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval. BMI = Body Mass Index, OHR = Online Health Research, FD = Family Dysfunction, HA = Health Anxiety, CC = Cyberchondria. * p < 0.05. *** p < 0.001.
Testing the Moderated Mediation Effect of Family Dysfunction on Cyberchondria.
| Predictors | Model 1 (HA) | Model 2 (CC) | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | SE |
| 95%CI | β | SE |
| 95%CI | |
| Grade | 0.12 | 0.04 | 2.71 ** | [0.03, 0.20] | 0.07 | 0.03 | 2.13 * | [0.01, 0.13] |
| Family structure | −0.00 | 0.07 | −0.04 | [−0.14, 0.13] | −0.10 | 0.05 | −1.91 | [−0.19, 0.00] |
| Socioeconomic status | 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.04 | [−0.04, 0.04] | 0.04 | 0.02 | 2.47 * | [0.01, 0.07] |
| BMI | −0.04 | 0.02 | −1.98 * | [−0.08, 0.00] | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.16 | [−0.01, 0.05] |
| OHR | 0.33 | 0.02 | 16.68 *** | [0.29, 0.37] | 0.33 | 0.02 | 21.35 *** | [0.30, 0.36] |
| OP | −0.17 | 0.02 | −7.72 *** | [−0.21, −0.12] | −0.04 | 0.02 | −2.50 * | [−0.07, −0.01] |
| FD | 0.18 | 0.02 | 8.06 *** | [0.13, 0.22] | 0.02 | 0.02 | 1.05 | [−0.02, 0.05] |
| FD × OP | −0.02 | 0.02 | −1.41 | [−0.06, 0.01] | −0.01 | 0.01 | −0.49 | [−0.03, 0.02] |
| HA | 0.54 | 0.02 | 31.59 *** | [0.51, 0.57] | ||||
| HA × OP | −0.04 | 0.02 | −2.76 ** | [−0.07, −0.01] | ||||
| R2 | 0.19 | 0.56 | ||||||
| F-value | 61.94 *** | 263.804 *** | ||||||
Note. Before analyses, continuous independent variables were standardized. Models 1 for Health Anxiety. Model 2 for Cyberchondria. The beta values are standardized coefficients. CI = [LLCI, ULCI], i.e., lower and upper limit of the 95% bias-corrected confidence interval. BMI = Body Mass Index, OHR = Online Health Research, FD = Family Dysfunction, HA = Health Anxiety, OP = Optimism, CC = Cyberchondria. * p < 0.05. ** p < 0.01. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3Optimistic moderated the relationship between health anxiety and cyberchondria.
Conditional indirect effect analysis at levels of the Moderator (optimism).
| Level of Moderator (Optimistic) | Indirect Effect | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| β | SE | LLCI | ULCI | |
| Low (1 standard deviation below mean) | 0.12 | 0.02 | 0.07 | 0.16 |
| Mean | 0.09 | 0.01 | 0.07 | 0.12 |
| High (1 standard deviation above mean) | 0.08 | 0.01 | 0.05 | 0.10 |
Note. Confidence intervals (CIs) that do not contain 0 are significant, i.e., lower and upper limit of the 95% bias-corrected CI. SE = Bootstrapping standard error.