4.6 Article

A dimensional approach to the phantom vibration and ringing syndrome during medical internship

期刊

JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRIC RESEARCH
卷 47, 期 9, 页码 1254-1258

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2013.05.023

关键词

Phantom vibration; Phantom ringing; Hallucination; Medical intern

资金

  1. National Science Council, Executive Yuan, Taiwan (R.O.C.) [NSC 100-2815-C-182A-002-B]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Phantom vibrations and ringing of mobile phones are prevalent hallucinations in the general population. They might be considered as a normal brain mechanism. The aim of this study was to determine if a dimensional approach to identify individuals suffering from these hallucinations was more important than a categorical approach. A prospective longitudinal study of 74 medical interns (male: 46, mean age: 24.8 +/- 1.2) was carried out using repeated investigations of the severity of phantom vibrations and ringing, as well as accompanying symptoms of anxiety and depression as measured by Beck Anxiety Inventory (BAI) and the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI) before, at the 3rd, 6th, and 12th month during internship, and 2 weeks after internship. We utilized the cognitive and somatic subscales of the SDI, as well as the subjective, somatic and panic subscales of the BAI. The correlation between phantom vibration and ringing was lowest before the internship but became moderate during the internship and high 2 weeks after it. Compared to interns with subclinical phantom ringing and vibrations, interns with severe phantom vibrations and ringing had higher subjective and somatic anxiety and somatic depressive scores at any time point throughout the internship. Only interns with severe phantom ringing had more cognitive/affective depression. A dimensional approach to the phantom vibration and ringing syndrome is a powerful way to identify their correlation, as well as their association with anxiety and depression. (C) 2013 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

4.6
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