4.5 Article

Psychological comorbidity and stress reactivity in children and adolescents with recurrent abdominal pain and anxiety disorders

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1097/00004583-200301000-00012

Keywords

recurrent abdominal pain; anxiety; stress reactivity; cortisol; blood pressure

Funding

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [MH 55123] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF MENTAL HEALTH [P30MH055123] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare clinical symptoms, diagnoses, and physiological measures in children and adolescents with recurrent abdominal pain (RAP) (n = 14), to a group with anxiety disorders (ANX) (n = 14) and a physically and psychiatrically healthy control group (HC) (n = 14) Method: The cross-sectional study examined group differences in clinical symptoms of anxiety, somatic complaints, depression, and behavior problems. Physiological measures included heart rate, systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and salivary cortisol in response to the Trier Social Stress Test for Children (TSSTC). Subjects were between the ages of 8 and 16 years. Results: RAP and ANX subjects had comparable scores on most psychological measures, and their scores were higher (p <.05) than those of the HQ The ANX and RAP groups exhibited physiological findings that had more shared similarities than either group with the HC group. Few statistically significant group differences were noted in physiological measures, yet the pattern of findings in blood pressure and cortisol supported the use of the TSST-G and the direction of the findings was consistent with expectations. Conclusions: Understanding more about comorbidity between RAP and anxiety could have important management implications, with observed congruities between the disorders suggesting treatments already demonstrated to be efficacious for pediatric anxiety and depression might be applied productively to RAP.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available