4.7 Article

Gastrointestinal and Psychological Mediators of Health-Related Quality of Life in IBS and IBD: A Structural Equation Modeling Analysis

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF GASTROENTEROLOGY
卷 107, 期 3, 页码 451-459

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1038/ajg.2011.377

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [R24 AT002681]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

OBJECTIVES: Inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) and irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) are chronic gastrointestinal (GI) syndromes in which both GI and psychological symptoms have been shown to negatively impact health- related quality of life (HRQOL). The objective of this study was to use structural equation modeling (SEM) to characterize the interrelationships among HRQOL, GI, and psychological symptoms to improve our understanding of the illness processes in both conditions. METHODS: Study participants included 564 Rome positive IBS patients and 126 IBD patients diagnosed via endoscopic and/or tissue confirmation. All patients completed questionnaires to assess bowel symptoms, psychological symptoms (SCL-90R), and HRQOL (SF-36). SEM with its two components of confirmatory analyses and structural modeling were applied to determine the relationships between GI and psychological symptoms and HRQOL within the IBS and IBD groups. RESULTS: For both IBD and IBS, psychological distress was found to have a stronger direct effect on HRQOL (-0.51 and -0.48 for IBS and IBD, respectively) than GI symptoms (-0.25 and -0.28). The impact of GI symptoms on psychological distress was stronger in IBD compared with IBS (0.43 vs. 0.22; P<0.05). The indirect effect of GI symptoms on HRQOL operating through psychological distress was significantly higher in IBD than IBS (-0.21 vs. -0.11; P<0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Psychological distress is less dependent on GI symptom severity in IBS compared with IBD even though the degree that psychological distress impacts HRQOL is similar. The findings emphasize the importance of addressing psychological symptoms in both syndromes.

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