Is Intolerance of Uncertainty transdiagnostic?

5 downloads 0 Views 2MB Size Report
1Department of General Psychology, University of Padova (Italy); 2Servizio di Psicologia Clinica, "Mater Salutis" Hospital, Legnago (Italy); 3School of.
Is Intolerance of Uncertainty transdiagnostic? Exploring the associations between Intolerance of Uncertainty and symptom severity in Italian clinical samples Gioia Bottesi1, Marta Ghisi1, Veronica Tesini1, Paola Schiavi2, Enrico Razzetti1, & Mark H. Freeston3 1Department

of General Psychology, University of Padova (Italy); 2Servizio di Psicologia Clinica, "Mater Salutis" Hospital, Legnago (Italy) ; 3School of Psychology, Institute of Neuroscience, Newcastle University (UK)

BACKGROUND   •  Intolerance   of   Uncertainty   (IU):   set   of   nega4ve   beliefs   about   uncertainty   and   its   consequences   (Koerner   &   Dugas,   2008)   comprising   two  dis4nct  components  (Birrell  et  al.,  2011;  Carleton  et  al.,  2012):     §  § 

Prospec4ve  IU:  future-­‐oriented  strategy  employed  to  gain  certainty;   Inhibitory   IU:   avoidance   strategy   preven4ng   individuals   from   ac4ng   when  they  found  themselves  in  ambiguous  situa4ons.  

•  Transdiagnos4c   nature:   specific   associa4ons   between   these   dimensions   and   different   disorders   (e.g.   Carleton   et   al.,   2012;   McEvoy   &   Mahoney,  2011,  2012):  

§  Generalised   Anxiety   Disorder   (GAD):   more   future-­‐oriented,   greater   involvement  of  the  Prospec4ve  IU;   §  Panic   Disorder   (PD)   and   Major   Depressive   Disorder   (MDD):   more   avoidance-­‐based,  greater  involvement  of  the  Inhibitory  IU;  

•  Although   there   is   a   significant   evidence   base   in   English-­‐speaking   samples,  there  is  liVle  aVen4on  in  the  Italian  context  to  date.  

 

AIMS  OF  THE  STUDY   1)  Examining   associa4ons   between   IU   and   symptom   severity   in   Italian  clinical  samples;   2)  Tes4ng   whether   the   two   IU   components   are   differen4ally   involved  in  different  psychological  disorders.     METHOD  

Par7cipants   Three  DSM-­‐5  diagnosed  clinical  groups:     • GAD  group  (N  =  13),  76.9%  female  (age:  47.38±14.12)     • PD  pa4ents  (N  =  12),  75%  female  (age:  43.25±9.64)       • MDD  pa4ents  (N  =  15),  93%  female  (age:  52±13.54)     One   healthy   control   (HC)   group   (N   =   14),   71.43%   female   (age:   45.50±10.79).   No  differences  between  groups  as  regards  gender  and  age  (ps  >.05).     Self  report  measures   • The   Intolerance   of   Uncertainty   Scale-­‐12   (IUS-­‐12)   (Carleton   et   al.,   2007;   Walker  et  al.,  2010)  

• The  Penn  State  Worry  Ques;onnaire  (PSWQ)  (Meyer  et  al.,  1990)   • The  Beck  Anxiety  Inventory  (BAI)  (Beck  et  al.,  1998)   • The  Beck  Depression  Inventory-­‐II  (BDI-­‐II)  (Beck  et  al.,  1996)   Procedure   • Clinical   par4cipants   were   outpa4ents   consecu4vely   referred   to   the   Servizio  di  Psicologia  Clinica,  "Mater  Salu4s"  Hospital  (Legnago,  Italy).   • Individuals   in   the   HC   group   were   recruited   through   adver4sements   reques4ng  poten4al  volunteers  for  psychological  studies.   • All   par4cipants   provided   their   wriVen   consent   before   entering   the   study.   • Self  report  measures  were  administered  in  counterbalanced  order  in   order  to  avoid  order  effects.   References   Beck,  A.  T.,  Epstein,  N.,  Brown,  G.,  &  Steer,  R.  A.  (1988).  An  inventory  for  measuring  clinical  anxiety:  psychometric  proper4es.  Journal  of  Consul;ng  and  Clinical   Psychology,  56,  893-­‐897.   Beck,  A.  T.,  Steer,  R.  A.,  &  Brown,  G.  K.  (1996).  Beck  Depression  Inventory  Second  Edi;on  Manual.  San  Antonio,  TX:  The  Psychological  Corpora4on  Harcourt  Brace   &  Company.   Birrell,  L.,  Meares,  K.,  Wilkinson,  A.,  &  Freeston,  M.  H.  (2011).  Toward  a  defini4on  of  intolerance  of  uncertainty:  A  review  of  factor  analy4cal  studies  of  the   Intolerance  of  Uncertainty  Scale.  Clinical  Psychology  Review,  31,  1198-­‐1208.   Carleton,  R.  N.,  Mulvogue,  M.  K.,  Thibodeau,  M.  A.,  McCabe,  R.  E.,  Antony,  M.  M.,  &  Asmundson,  G.  J.  G.  (2012).  Increasingly  certain  about  uncertainty:   Intolerance  of  uncertainty  across  anxiety  and  depression.  Journal  of  Anxiety  Disorders,  26,  468-­‐479.   Carleton,  R.  N.,  Norton,  P.  J.,  &  Asmundson,  G.  J.  G.  (2007).  Fearing  the  unknown:  A  short  version  of  the  Intolerance  of  Uncertainty  Scale.  Journal  of  Anxiety   Disorders,  21,  105-­‐117.   Dugas,  M.  J.,  Gagnon,  F.,  Ladouceur,  R.,  &  Freeston,  M.  H.  (1998).  Generalized  anxiety  disorder:  a  preliminary  test  of  a  conceptual  model.  Behaviour  Research  and   Therapy,  36,  215-­‐226.   Koerner,  N.,  &  Dugas,  M.  J.  (2008).  An  inves4ga4on  of  appraisals  in  individuals  vulnerable  to  excessive  worry:  The  role  of  intolerance  of  uncertainty.  Cogni;ve   Therapy  and  Research,  32,  619-­‐638.     McEvoy,  P.  M.,  &  Mahoney,  A.  E.  J.  (2011).  Achieving  certainty  about  the  structure  of  intolerance  of  uncertainty  in  a  treatment-­‐seeking  sample  with  anxiety  and   depression.  Journal  of  Anxiety  Disorders,  25,  112-­‐122.   McEvoy,  P.  M.,  &  Mahoney,  A.  E.  J  (2012).  To  be  sure,  to  be  sure:  intolerance  of  uncertainty  mediates  symptoms  of  various  anxiety  disorders  and  depression.   Behaviour  Therapy,  43,  533-­‐545.   Meyer,  T.  J.,  Miller,  M.  L.,  Metzger,  R.  L.,  &  Borkovec,  T.  D.  (1990).  Development  and  valida4on  of  the  Penn  State  Worry  Ques4onnaire.  Behavior  Research  and   Therapy,  28,  487-­‐495.     Walker,  S.,  Birrell,  J.,    L.  Rogers,  J.  Leekam,  S.,  and  Freeston,  M.  H.,  (2010).  Intolerance  of  Uncertainty  Scale  –  Revised  (Unpublished  Document,  Newcastle   University).    

RESULTS  

Descrip7on  of  par7cipants   Scores  obtained  by  the  4  groups  on  the  psychopathological  measures   and  the  IUS-­‐12  Total  score  are  reported  in  Table  1.     Self   GAD     PD     MDD     HC     par*al     report   F p   Bonferroni  post  hocs   group   group   group   group   η     measure     60.92     56.95     57.91   39.64   8.65   <  .001   .34   GAD  =  PD  =  MDD  >  HC     PSWQ   (9.86)   (9.94)   (14.50)   (13.00)     19.16   24.41   26.39   9.35     PD  =  MDD  >  HC   6.00   .002   .28   BAI     (14.82)   (15.27)   (10,14)   (7.73)   GAD  =  PD,  GAD  =  HC   MDD  >  GAD  =  HC     14.46     20.07   28.41   5.64   PD  =  GAD,  PD  =  MDD,   12.19    HC   37.85   33.09   36.08   23.36   IUS-­‐12     5.62   .002   .26   PD  =  GAD  =  MDD   (11.51)   (10.87)   (10.59)   (7.11)   Total     PD  =  HC   Table  1:  Mean  (SDs)  scores  obtained  by  the  4  groups  on  the  PWSQ,  BAI,  BDI-­‐II,  And  IUS-­‐12  Total  scores.       Associa7ons  between  IU  and  symptom  severity     Pearson’s   correla4ons   were   performed   on   the   whole   clinical   sample   (Table   2).   Posi4ve   medium-­‐range   correla4ons   between   the   IUS-­‐12   (Total   and   subscales)   and   the   PSWQ   emerged.   On   the   other   hand,   no   associa4ons  with  the  BAI  and  the  BDI-­‐II  scores  were  found.     PSWQ   BAI   BDI-­‐II     IUS-­‐12   .45**   .31   .18   Total     IUS-­‐12   .44**   .25   .10     Prospec7ve   IUS-­‐12     .45**   .32   .25   Inhibitory     Table  2.  Note:  N  =  40.    **  =  p  <  .001.       Differences  between  clinical  groups  on  the  IU  dimensions   Clinical  groups  were  compared  on  the  IUS-­‐12  Prospec4ve  and  Inhibitory   subscales   controlling   for   the   PSWQ   scores   (Table   3).   No   differences   between   groups   emerged.   PSWQ   was   a   significant   covariate   in   both   the   ANCOVAs   (p   =   .009,   par;al   η2   =   .18;   p   =   .006,   par;al   η2   =   .21,   respec4vely).   3,47  

2

 

             

GAD    

PD    

MDD    

F2,37  

group  

group  

group  

 

IUS-­‐12  

24.31  

20.00    

22.07    

Prospec7ve    

(6.34)  

(5.90)  

(5.24)  

IUS-­‐12  

13.54  

13.09    

14.38    

Inhibitory    

(6.19)  

(5.79)  

(6.24)  

p  

1.32  

.28  

.25  

.78  

Table  3.  Mean  (SDs)  scores  obtained  by  the  3  clinical  groups  on  the     IUS-­‐12  Prospec4ve  and  Inhibitory  subscales.  

DISCUSSION   •  Overall,  IU  was  moderately  associated  with  worry  and  unrelated  to   p h y s i o l o g i c a l   a n x i e t y   a n d   d e p r e s s i v e   s y m p t o m s                correla4onal  findings  suggest  a  preferen4al  rela4onship  between   IU   and   worry   (in   line   with   the   Laval   model;   Dugas   et   al.,   1998).   To   note:  worry  was  a  highly  shared  feature  across  groups.   •  Higher  levels  of  IU  in  GAD  and  MDD  pa4ents  than  in  HCs  AND  similar   levels  of  Prospec4ve  and  Inhibitory  IU  across  clinical  groups.               support   to   the   transdiagnos4city   of   IU   but   no   specific   paVerns             characterising  different  disorders            cross-­‐cultural  similari4es  and   differences?   •  Main   limita4ons:   small   sample   size   (low   power),   assessment   of   comorbidity,  unrepresenta4veness  of  Italian  clinical  popula4on.   •  Further   inves4ga4on   is   needed   since   replica4ng   that   IU   has   transdiagnos4c   rela4onships   across   cultures   and   would   increase   support  for  the  need  of  transdiagnos4c  interven4ons  that  target  IU.