1. Sign our petition calling on Cochrane to withdraw their review of Exercise Therapy for 'CFS'.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Guest, the 'News in Brief' for the week beginning 15th July 2024 is here.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Welcome! Read the Core Purpose and Values of our forum.
    Dismiss Notice

Preprint Putting the Vicious Cycle to the Test: Evidence for the Cognitive Behavioral Model of Persistent Somatic Symptoms from an Online Study, 2023, Sahm

Discussion in 'Other psychosomatic news and research' started by Dolphin, Jun 23, 2023.

  1. Dolphin

    Dolphin Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,364
    https://psyarxiv.com/7c4yf/

    Putting the Vicious Cycle to the Test: Evidence for the Cognitive Behavioral Model of Persistent Somatic Symptoms from an Online Study

    Alexander H. J. Sahm1* , M.Sc., https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1401-4329 Michael Witthöft2 , PhD, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-4928-4222 Josef Bailer3 , PhD, https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2196-2482 & Daniela Mier1 , PhD, https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2518-7492

    1 Department of Psychology, University of Konstanz, Konstanz, Germany
    2 Department of Clinical Psychology, Psychotherapy, and Experimental Psychopathology, Johannes Gutenberg-University Mainz, Mainz, Germany
    3 Department of Clinical Psychology, Central Institute of Mental Health, University of Heidelberg / Medical Faculty Mannheim, Mannheim, Germany

    Abstract

    Objective:

    In clinical practice, persistent somatic symptoms are regularly explained using a cognitive-behavioral model (CBM).

    In the CBM, predisposing, perpetuating, and precipitating factors are assumed to interact and to cause the onset and endurance of somatic symptoms.

    However, these models are rarely investigated in their entirety.

    Methods:

    We conducted an online-survey during the Corona pandemic.

    2,114 participants from the general German population completed a number of questionnaires that measured different factors of the CBM.

    We used negative affectivity and neuroticism as predisposing factors, the fear of a COVID-19 infection as precipitating factor, and somatic symptoms, misinterpretation of bodily symptoms, attention allocation to bodily symptoms, and health anxiety as perpetuating factors.

    Moreover, we added behavioral variables (safety and avoidance behavior) as endpoints to the model. We tested the assumptions of the CBM by evaluating a structural equation model (SEM) that incorporated all factors of the model.

    Further, we conducted a psychological network analysis to exploratively study the relationships between the model’s different factors.

    Results:

    Our SEM showed adequate fit.

    Network analyses revealed clustering in our data: Health anxiety and different cognitive factors are closely related, while somatic symptoms and negative affectivity are strongly associated.

    Conclusions:

    Our findings from a confirmatory and an exploratory approach give empirical support for the CBM, suggesting it as a suitable model to guide clinical practice.

    The network model additionally demonstrates the necessity to apply an individualized CBM for patients, depending on a preponderance of either PSS or health concerns.
     
    Dolphin, Jun 23, 2023
    #1
    oldtimer, Trish, DokaGirl and 3 others like this.
  2. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    27,984
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    Umm, is
    a fancy way of saying 'fishing exercise to confirm our prejudices?
     
    Hutan, Jun 23, 2023
    #2
    MEMarge, Joan Crawford, Creekside and 15 others like this.
  3. SNT Gatchaman

    SNT Gatchaman Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    5,003
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    <Rant ahead>

    With no valid objective evidence.

    With no valid objective evidence.

    So no valid objective evidence then? Yep, the model and therapies based on the model never actually seem to work end-to-end do they? The middle bit (CBM) most certainly is investigated ad nauseum with subjective, 'questionnaire-able' research which incredibly always seems to support the researchers' proposed theory. "Promising".

    So again, no valid objective evidence. Great job advancing understanding, people. (Also in the science biz we say 'SARS-CoV-2', 'Covid' or 'coronavirus'. This is not a pandemic of Mexican beer, more's the pity.)

    "We used negative affectivity and neuroticism fear as predisposing factors, the fear of a COVID-19 infection as precipitating factor, and somatic symptoms, misinterpretation of bodily symptoms, attention allocation to bodily symptoms, and health anxiety fear as perpetuating factors."

    So if I've got this right, your model proposes that: a predisposition to fear precipitates fear which leads to a perpetuation of fear. Well, I propose that a predisposition to BS precipitates BS which leads to a perpetuation of BS — which sounds like a real vicious cycle.
     
    SNT Gatchaman, Jun 23, 2023
    #3
    MEMarge, Joan Crawford, Creekside and 22 others like this.
  4. Hutan

    Hutan Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    27,984
    Location:
    Aotearoa New Zealand
    I read 'rant ahead' and went and liked your post SNT. And then settled in to read the post. Because, the paper is drivel and rants are a rational response.

    Even a very poor and prejudiced study I've just ranted about managed to get more right, noting that negative affectivity was not associated with the persistence of symptoms after 12 weeks, and, even if it had been, the directions of causality would be questionable.

    The Dubbo study found no grounds for psychological parameters being risk factors for persisting symptoms after infection. Even the most rabid BPS statistician only managed to come up with a recovery odds ratio of 0.99 or something like that for neuroticism from that study, and of course there's all sorts of confounders going on, with people who express concerns about the future or their health often having very valid reasons to do so. We haven't seen any paper that stands up as evidence of personality factors being risks for persistent symptoms.

    I can imagine these authors struggling to deal with real patients, desperately drawing their circles on paper like some ritual to ward off patient contempt.
     
    Hutan, Jun 23, 2023
    #4
    MEMarge, Joan Crawford, Sean and 12 others like this.
  5. alex3619

    alex3619 Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    2,200
    Pretty well sums up the whole BPS movement.
     
    alex3619, Jun 23, 2023
    #5
    MEMarge, Joan Crawford, Sean and 10 others like this.
  6. Trish

    Trish Moderator Staff Member

    Messages:
    53,649
    Location:
    UK
    I have done a quick skim of the paper. Several things I picked up.

    First, this was a cross sectional study, which means it was done at a single time point. All they did was ask anyone online to fill in a bunch of questionnaires at some point during the Covid-19 pandemic. In which case how can they assess whether any psychological or behavioural factor predisposed, precipitated or perpetuated physical symptoms?
    They say so themselves in the limitations section:
    Secondly, I have not looked at the specific collection of questionnaires they used, but we have seen many such questionnaires, and found that, for example, anxiety questionnaires include some physical symptoms which may in some patients have nothing to do with anxiety, such as sweating or raised heart rate, and we have seen that there are overlaps in the type of things asked in questionnaires for different assumed psychological and behavioural traits. From that I conclude that a lot of the associations their fancy model purports to show are simply associations between questions asked - an artefact of the method, not a real research finding about people.

    Thirdly, in an attempt at longtitudinal data, they include some odd things like asking people to predict how they will feel:
    And finally they inevitably found so many associations between all the different factors that they could make up pretty well any model they liked to explain them. They admit this in the limitations section:
    So I conclude that they have collected a lot of responses to psych questionnaires at a single time point in a non random self selected online sample, used a fancy stats package to draw some pretty diagrams for them, and drawn conclusions in favour of their preferred model, even though they admit themselves that other models would fit equally well, and they would need longitudinal data, not single time point data to test their model.

    So a pointless exercise in confirming prejudices, not science.
     
    Trish, Jun 23, 2023
    #6
    MEMarge, Mithriel, Joan Crawford and 12 others like this.
  7. rvallee

    rvallee Senior Member (Voting Rights)

    Messages:
    12,998
    Location:
    Canada
    LMAO, ChatGPT is already smarter than this.

    And not just smarter, wiser, too. And it's not especially either. But far above whatever this... thing here is.

    For sure there's a vicious cycle going on alright. Although it would be more fair to speak of an infinite loop. Also something ChatGPT is a lot smarter at.
     
    rvallee, Jun 23, 2023
    #7
    Joan Crawford, alktipping, boolybooly and 2 others like this.

Share This Page