4.5 Article

Metacognitions and brooding predict depressive symptoms in a community adolescent sample

期刊

BMC PSYCHIATRY
卷 22, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/s12888-022-03779-5

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Depressive symptoms are common in adolescents, with higher levels found in girls compared to boys. Rumination and brooding are key factors in maintaining depressive symptoms, with metacognitions about rumination playing a significant role. The study found that female adolescents had higher scores than males on various measures related to depressive symptoms and metacognitions. Negative metacognitions and brooding were identified as major factors for both sexes in predicting depressive symptoms, suggesting similar underlying mechanisms. Overall, the findings imply that metacognitive therapy may be an effective intervention for depressive symptoms among adolescents.
Depressive symptoms are prevalent in adolescence, and girls have higher levels of depressive symptoms and depressive disorder than boys. Rumination and especially brooding, seem to be a central maintaining factor of depressive symptoms, where metacognitions about rumination play a prominent role in maintaining depressive rumination. There is a sex difference in adults in depressive disorder. The current investigation of a high school / community sample of adolescents aged 16-20 from Norway (N=1198, 62.2% women) found that adolescent women had higher scores than men on all relevant measures: Depressive symptoms, negative and positive metacognitions, pondering, and brooding. A path model for predicting depressive symptoms showed that the major factors for both sexes were negative metacognitions and brooding. The predictors of depressive symptoms were invariant across sex and age groups, suggesting similar underlying mechanisms across these groups. The overall findings suggest that metacognitive therapy may be an efficient intervention for depressive symptoms among adolescents.

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

4.5
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