4.7 Review

Anxiety and Depression in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease: Perspectives on the Use of Hypnosis

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PSYCHOLOGY
卷 13, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.913406

关键词

COPD; anxiety; depression; hypnosis; breathlessness; comorbidity; self-management; complementary care

资金

  1. Bligny Hospital Center (CHB)
  2. Helebor Foundation (Paris, France)
  3. Department of Cognitive Studies at Ecole Normale Superieure de Paris, PSL University [ANR-10-LABX-0087 IEC, ANR-10-IDEX-0001-02 PSL]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article introduces the potential of hypnosis therapy in the treatment of anxiety and breathlessness in COPD patients, and evaluates the application of hypnosis in anxiety, depression, and respiratory diseases. The article discusses the potential of hypnosis for improving health-related quality of life and self-management of COPD.
Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD) is a highly prevalent and debilitating respiratory condition, characterized by chronic airflow limitation, breathlessness, and other persistent respiratory symptoms. Critically, patients suffering from COPD often find themselves trapped in a vicious comorbidity cycle: while breathlessness and increased respiratory rate are known inducers of anxiety, the latter have been shown in turn to exacerbate breathlessness and chest discomfort. Hypnosis holds great potential for the simultaneous complementary management of anxiety and breathlessness in COPD. It is an inexpensive psychological intervention tailored to the patient's own experience, convenient in terms of logistics and implementation. In this short qualitative review, we present hypnosis' structural, cognitive, and neural fundamentals, and assess existing instances of hypnosis use in the treatment of anxiety, depression, and respiratory disease. We then discuss its potential as a tool for improving health-related quality of life and the self-management of COPD within (and beyond) pulmonary rehabilitation.

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

4.7
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