3.8 Article

Drop attacks as a subtype of FND: A cognitive behavioural model using grounded theory

期刊

EPILEPSY & BEHAVIOR REPORTS
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ebr.2021.100491

关键词

Functional neurological disorder; Cognitive behavioural; Idiopathic drop attacks; Cryptogenic drop attacks; Formulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Idiopathic drop attacks are falls without warning and consciousness loss, potentially considered as a feature of functional neurological disorder. The cognitive behavioural model of drop attacks includes precipitating factors, maintaining cycle, and stress levels.
Idiopathic drop attacks are falls to the floor, without warning, and without loss of consciousness, for which the cause is uncertain. They are poorly studied but recent research suggests that many idiopathic drop attacks may be usefully considered within the spectrum of functional neurological disorder (FND). The aim of this study was to test a cognitive behavioural model of idiopathic drop attacks, in order to inform formulation and treatment. Interviews and diaries were completed by seven individuals experiencing drop attacks, and were analysed using a grounded theory qualitative data approach. Through the coding and synthesis of data into themes, a proposed cognitive behavioural model was identified, with a main precipitating event in all cases being a fall related to another cause, such as a mechanical fall or a fall due to medical reasons. Additional precipitating factors identified included situational triggers, high levels of stress, and dissociation. A maintaining cycle of thoughts, emotion and behaviour is outlined. Our proposed theory is consistent with current cognitive behavioural models of FND. A cognitive behavioural understanding of drop attacks when considered part of FND aids formulation in clinical practice, and suggests that cognitive behavioural therapy interventions for FND may also be applicable in this population. (C) 2021 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc.

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

3.8
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