4.4 Article

An investigation of psychological profiles and risk factors in congenital microtia patients

出版社

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.bjps.2007.09.002

关键词

Congenital microtia; Risk factor; Cross-sectional study; Mood disorders

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: Among congenital deformities, microtia is often said to be one of the most difficult for the reconstructive surgeon. However, few reports have investigated patients' and their families' psychological profiles. This study sought to determine the prevalence of mood disorders among patients with microtia and to explore clinical features associated with mood disorders. Methods: Congenital microtia patients were interviewed about Symptom Checklist-90 (SCL-90) and the Achenbach Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL), gender and age of patients, severity of malformation, first perceived age and approach to deformity, being teased by peers, education level of parents, family harmony or not, emotional impact of un-repaired microtia on parents and attitudes of family to patients. Results: The prevalence of mood disorders among microtia patients: 'depression' 20.2%, 'interpersonal. sensitivity/social difficulties' 36.6% and 'hostility/aggression' 26.3%. Muttivariate analyses suggested that age of patients, severity of microtia, tow levels of maternal education, being teased by peers, family disharmony, psychological impact on parents and overprotection from parents are significantly associated with mood disorders of patients. Conclusion: Our findings suggest that microtia patients exhibit three significant mood disorders including depression, interpersonal sensitivity/social difficulties and hostility/aggression. Some risk factors should be actively prevented and controlled, such as being teased by peers, family disharmony, psychological impact on parents and overprotection from family. (C) 2007 British Association of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据