Search

Background and Objectives: Resilience refers to the process through which individuals show better outcomes than what would be expected based on the adversity they experienced. Several theories have proposed that variation in resilience is underpinned by cognitive flexibility, however, no study has investigated this using an outcome-based measure of resilience. Design: We used a residual-based approach to index resilience, which regresses a measure of mental health difficulties onto a measure of adversity experienced. The residuals obtained from this regression constitute how much better or worse someone is functioning relative to what is predicted by the adversity they have experienced. Methods: A total of 463 undergraduate participants completed questionnaires of mental health difficulties and adversity, as well as a number-letter task-switching task to assess cognitive flexibility. Results: Multiple regression analyses showed that better cognitive flexibility was not associated with greater resilience. Conclusions: Our findings do not support theoretical models that propose the existence of a relationship between cognitive flexibility and resilience. Future research may serve to refine the residual-based approach to measure resilience, as well as investigate the contribution of "hot" rather than "cold" cognitive flexibility to individual differences in resilience. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Attentional processing of pain has been theorized to play a key role in the severity of pain and associated disability. In particular attentional bias towards pain information, resulting in poor pain outcomes, has been extensively researched. Recently, the idea was put forward that attention bias malleability (AM), i.e., the readiness to acquire an attentional bias irrespective of its direction, may be key in predicting poor pain outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in two studies. Methods: In Study 1, 55 healthy participants completed an AM paradigm, followed by an experimental heat pain paradigm probing pain experience and pain-related task interference. In Study 2, 71 people with chronic pain completed an AM paradigm and questionnaires probing pain experience and associated disability. Results: In Study 1, including healthy participants, no relationship was found between AM indices and experimental pain outcomes. In Study 2, including chronic pain patients, results indicated that higher levels of overall AM were related to higher levels of pain experience and disability. Conclusion: This study partially supports the hypotheses that the degree to which individuals can adapt their attentional preference in line with changing environmental conditions is associated with poor pain outcomes. However, future research is needed to clarify inconsistent findings between healthy volunteers and chronic pain patients as well as to determine the causal status of AM in poor pain outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: Worry about recurrence or progression is a common concern among people with chronic physical illnesses. Although there are options to measure the fear of cancer recurrence and other illness‐specific measures, there is only one transdiagnostic measure of fear of progression, which does not assess the fear of recurrence or relapse. Design: A multi‐phase study outlining the development and validation of a novel transdiagnostic measure of fear of recurrence or progression, the Worries About Recurrence and Progression Scale (WARPS). Method: From a prior systematic review, we used quotes from people with lived experience to generate 55 items. Next, we piloted the items with 10 people with a range of chronic conditions, leading to a final total of 57 items. We then recruited four groups of people with cardiac disease, rheumatic disease, diabetes and respiratory disease (n = 804). An exploratory factor analysis in a randomly split sample resulted in an 18 item, single factor scale. We then performed confirmatory factor analysis on these 18 items in the remaining sample. Results: The 18‐item WARPS demonstrated good construct validity, internal consistency and test–retest reliability. Specifically, the WARPS was strongly correlated with the Fear of Progression Questionnaire, and with illness‐specific fears. Significant, moderate correlations were observed with depression, anxiety, stress, and death anxiety. The WARPS demonstrated the validity and reliability amongst people with four of the most common chronic conditions and the factor structure was invariant across genders. Conclusion: The WARPS is a valid and reliable tool to measure transdiagnostic worries about recurrence and progression. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most theories of pain emphasize cognitive factors in the development of chronicity, but they have rarely been studied in the context of the transition from acute to chronic pain. The aim of the present study was to assess the role of interpretation bias, pain anxiety, and pain avoidance in acute and chronic pain and the transition from acute to chronic pain. Study 1 recruited a sample of N = 85 adults with chronic pain. Study 2 recruited a sample of N = 254 adults with acute pain and followed them up 3 months later. Both studies assessed interpretation bias with the word association task, as well as measuring pain-related anxiety, pain avoidance, pain severity, and pain interference. In study 2, pain outcomes at 3 months were also assessed. Across both acute and chronic pain samples, interpretation bias was associated with pain interference, but not pain severity. Path analysis mediation models for study 2 showed that interpretation bias was associated with increased pain anxiety, which predicted both pain severity and pain interference 3 months later. Pain anxiety was also associated with pain avoidance, but pain avoidance did not predict pain outcomes. This research provides further insight into the transition from acute to chronic pain, suggesting that interpretation bias in acute pain may play a role in pain-related anxiety that drives pain interference, thus maintaining chronic pain. These findings hold promise for further research into potential large-scale preventative interventions targeting interpretation bias and pain anxiety in acute pain. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The nocebo effect represents a growing concern in clinical settings. Nocebo effects occur when the treatment context generates negative expectancies that trigger the experience or worsening of negative symptoms beyond any effects attributable to the treatment itself. Despite being identified in a range of outcomes and conditions, from pain to Parkinson's disease, there has not been an attempt to systematically quantify the nocebo effects across health outcomes. The purpose of the present review was thus to systematically review and meta-analyze the nocebo literature to quantify the size of the nocebo effect across outcomes and examine which factors moderate the size of the nocebo effect, including process of induction, treatment type, or health outcome. Method: Systematic searches of PubMed, PychInfo, Medline, and Web of Science identified 130 (n= 8,219) independent eligible studies. To be included, studies had to include both a nocebo and control group/condition, which were compared to isolate the nocebo effect size. Results: Overall, the magnitude of the nocebo effect was medium (g= 0.522) and highly heterogeneous. Two key moderators emerged: health outcome and process of induction. Here, the nocebo effect was medium for most somatic outcomes and affect, with no significant effect on worsening cognitive performance. Further, inducing nocebo effects through instruction in combination with conditioning produced larger nocebo effects. Conclusions: The present review suggests nocebo effects can be reliably induced across somatic health outcomes, and interventions that target the effect of instructions will be of critical importance to reducing the occurrence of nocebo effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Despite the theoretical prominence of expectancy and anxiety as potential mechanisms of the nocebo effect, not all studies measure expectancy and/or anxiety, and there are inconsistent findings among those that do. The present study sought to systematically review and meta-analyse available data to evaluate the relationship between expectancy, anxiety and the nocebo effect. The two key questions were: (1) whether nocebo manipulations influence expectancy and anxiety; and (2) whether expectancy and anxiety are associated with the subsequent nocebo effect. Fifty-nine independent studies (n = 3129) were identified via database searches to 1st August 2021. Nocebo manipulations reliably increased negative expectancy with a large effect (g = .837) and state anxiety with a small effect (g = .312). Changes in expectancy and state anxiety due to the nocebo manipulation were associated with larger nocebo effects (r = .376 and .234, respectively). However, there was no significant association between dispositional anxiety and the nocebo effect. These findings support theories that rely on situationally-induced expectancy and anxiety, but not dispositional anxiety, to explain nocebo effects. Importantly, being malleable, these findings suggest that interventions that target maladaptive negative expectancies and state anxiety could be beneficial for reducing the harm nocebo effects cause across health settings. Recommendations for future research are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]