4.5 Article

Associations between anxiety disorders and physical illness

出版社

DR DIETRICH STEINKOPFF VERLAG
DOI: 10.1007/s00406-003-0449-y

关键词

anxiety disorders; comorbidity; physical illness; psychiatric epidemiology; psychosomatic medicine

资金

  1. NIAAA NIH HHS [AAO7080, AA09978] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIDA NIH HHS [DA05348] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NIMH NIH HHS [MH36197] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective In contrast to the literature on the association of depression with medical illness, less is known about the comorbidity among anxiety and somatic disorders. Although associations between anxiety disorders and medical illnesses have been reported, prior studies have not adjusted for the effects of gender, substance abuse/dependence, and depression. This study examined the patterns of comorbidity of anxiety disorders and physical illnesses. Method A total of 262 probands were selected from treatment settings or were randomly recruited from the community. DSM-III-R diagnoses were obtained based on direct interview (SADS) or family history information, and lifetime history of numerous medical illnesses were obtained. Results Patients with a lifetime anxiety disorder reported higher rates of several medical illnesses than did persons without anxiety. After controlling for the effects of gender, comorbid substance abuse/dependence and/or depression, significant associations were found between anxiety disorder and cardiac disorders (OR = 4.6), hypertension (OR = 2.4), gastrointestinal problems (OR = 2.4), genitourinary disorders (OR = 3.5), and migraine (OR = 5.0). A similar pattern was observed for probands with panic or generalized anxiety disorder (GAD). Conclusions Anxiety disorders were associated with a specific pattern of cardiac disorders, hypertension, gastrointestinal problems, genitourinary difficulties, and migraine; individuals presenting with anxiety disorders or medical illness need therefore to be evaluated carefully for comorbidity.

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