4.4 Article

Prospective associations between disgust proneness and OCD symptoms: Specificity to excessive washing compulsions

期刊

JOURNAL OF ANXIETY DISORDERS
卷 65, 期 -, 页码 34-40

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2019.05.003

关键词

Disgust Proneness; OCD; Washing; Contamination

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Although considerable evidence has linked disgust proneness (DP) to obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), few studies have examined the extent to which DP predicts OCD symptoms over time. Further, it remains unclear if DP is a risk factor for the contamination subtype of OCD specifically or if it is prospectively associated with other OCD symptom subtypes. The present study sought to address these gaps in the literature with a large sample of unselected community participants (n = 497) that completed measures of DP and OCD symptoms monthly over a 6-month period. Latent growth analysis revealed that initial levels of DP were associated with higher initial level of total OCD symptoms when controlling for depression, but not the slope of change in total OCD symptoms over time. Initial levels of total OCD symptoms were also associated with higher initial levels of DP when controlling depression, but not the slope of change in DP over time. Examination of symptom specificity revealed that initial levels of DP were associated with initial levels of washing, neutralizing, obsessing, ordering, and hoarding symptoms. However, initial levels of DP were associated only with the slope of change in the washing subtype when controlling for depression such that high initial levels of DP were associated with steeper increases in washing symptoms of OCD over the 6-month period. These findings suggest that although DP may have concurrent associations with symptoms of OCD more broadly, prospective associations are specific to the contamination/washing subtype of OCD. The implications of these findings for the etiology and treatment of contamination-based OCD are discussed.

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