4.3 Article

A meta-analytic review of the common-sense model of illness representations

期刊

PSYCHOLOGY & HEALTH
卷 18, 期 2, 页码 141-184

出版社

TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/088704403100081321

关键词

illness cognitions; self-regulation model; research synthesis; classification of coping

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A meta-analysis of empirical studies (N=45) adopting Leventhal, Meyer and Nerenz's (1980) Common Sense Model (CSM) of illness representations is presented. The average corrected intercorrelation matrix for the sample of studies showed that the CSM illness cognition dimensions of consequences, control/cure, identity and timeline followed a logical pattern supporting their construct and discriminant validity across illness types. A content analysis classified coping strategies into seven distinctive categories and health outcomes into six categories. Examining the average corrected correlation coefficients across the studies revealed that perceptions of a strong illness identity were significantly and positively related to the use of coping strategies of avoidance and emotion expression. In addition, perceived controllability of the illness was significantly associated with cognitive reappraisal, expressing emotions and problem-focused coping strategies. Perceptions of the illness as highly symptomatic, having a chronic timeline and serious consequences was significantly correlated with avoidance and expressing emotions coping strategies. Further, perceptions that the illness was curable/controllable was significantly and positively related to the adaptive outcomes of psychological well-being, social functioning and vitality and negatively related to psychological distress and disease state. Conversely, illness consequences, timeline and identity exhibited significant, negative relationships with psychological well being, role and social functioning and vitality. The analyses provide evidence for theoretically predictable relations between illness cognitions, coping and outcomes across studies.

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

4.3
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