• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

Statistically Modelling the Relationships between Type D Personality...

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
FWIW



Statistically Modelling the Relationships between Type D Personality and Social Support, Health Behaviors and Symptom Severity in Chronic Illness Groups

Horwood S1, Anglim J1, Tooley G1.
  • 1a School of Psychology , Deakin University , 221 Burwood Highway, Burwood , 3125 Victoria , Australia.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26998656

Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
The study aimed to develop a predictive model of how Type D personality influences health behaviors, social support, and symptom severity and assess its generalizability to a range of chronic illnesses.

DESIGN:
Participants were classified as either healthy (n = 182) or having a chronic illness (n = 207). Participants completed an online survey measuring Type D and a range of health-related variables. Chronic illness participants were classified as having either a functional somatic syndrome (i.e. chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia), where the underlying pathological processes were unclear, or illnesses such as type 2 diabetes, osteoarthritis, or rheumatoid arthritis, where the causes are well understood.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:
Outcome measures were health behaviors, social support, and both physical and psychological symptoms.

RESULTS:
The rate of Type D was higher in chronic illness participants (53%) than in healthy controls (39%). Negative affectivity (NA) and social inhibition (SI) both correlated with outcome measures, although NA was generally the stronger predictor. Using NA and SI as independent subscales led to superior prediction of health outcomes than using categorical or continuous representations.

CONCLUSION:
Findings suggest that the relationship between Type D and health outcomes may generalize across different chronic illnesses.
 

Kati

Patient in training
Messages
5,497
Type D personality, a concept used in the field of medical psychology, is defined as the joint tendency towards negative affectivity (e.g. worry, irritability, gloom) and social inhibition (e.g. reticence and a lack of self-assurance).The letter D stands for "distressed".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_D_personality
 

Old Bones

Senior Member
Messages
808
Type D personality, a concept used in the field of medical psychology, is defined as the joint tendency towards negative affectivity (e.g. worry, irritability, gloom) and social inhibition (e.g. reticence and a lack of self-assurance).The letter D stands for "distressed".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_D_personality

Seems ME patients can't win. We're either labelled "vexatious" for expressing our opinions and asking questions. Or, we're categorized as having a less-desirable personality type if we are reticent (remain silent). Damn right we're "distressed". To not be, considering the way we've been portrayed and mistreated for many years, would be abnormal.
 

Asa

Senior Member
Messages
179
So, medical and societal abuse causes distress and harms people?

Isn't this "study" like saying... We found that sick dogs that were kicked a lot were less likely to heal?
 
Last edited:

Asa

Senior Member
Messages
179
Type D personality, a concept used in the field of medical psychology, is defined as the joint tendency towards negative affectivity (e.g. worry, irritability, gloom) and social inhibition (e.g. reticence and a lack of self-assurance).The letter D stands for "distressed".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_D_personality

I just very superficially noticed that that wiki link lists Coyne JC as an author. Wonder what he would say about the above paper?
 

Snow Leopard

Hibernating
Messages
5,902
Location
South Australia
Because, even in healthy populations, Type D personality is associated with somatic complaints and exaggerated symptom reporting, we hypothesize that functional somatic syndromes, conditions that are characterized primarily by general somatic complaints of unclear etiology, such as chronic fatigue syndrome or fibromyalgia, may be more susceptible to the effects of Type D personality than illnesses of known etiology such as type 2 diabetes or arthritis.

Participants were recruited via a number of illness support agencies (Diabetes Australia, CFS/ME Australia, FMS Support Australia) and social media sites (predominantly Facebook and Twitter). Participants completed an online survey composed of demographic questions, the DS14, the General Preventative Health Behaviors Checklist, the Social Network Support Scale and finally the Rotterdam Symptom Checklist. Participants were asked to respond yes or no to the follow statement regarding their health status: "Do you have a chronic illness that has been diagnosed by your GP or health care specialist? A chronic illness is defined as an illness that lasts at least six months in duration". Participants could select any of five chronic conditions; chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, type 2 diabetes, rheumatoid arthritis, and osteoarthritis, or enter free text for any condition that differed from, or was comorbid with, any of the five under investigation.

Beware of online surveys!

When Type D was treated as a categorical variable, chi-square tests indicated that the rate of Type D personality was significantly lower in healthy controls (39.0%) than in the illnesses of known etiology group (52.3%, p < .05) and the functional somatic syndrome group (54.0%, p < .05), but there was no significant difference between the two chronic illness groups.

Of the 24 interaction terms examined, two were statistically significant.
First, the negative effect of negative affectivity on healthy behavior was reduced in the chronic illness group. Second, the negative effect of negative affectivity on social support was amplified in the functional somatic syndrome group. Thus, the hypothesis that Type D would have a differential effect by group was partially supported. As a result, subsequent regression predicting healthy behavior and social support retained group by Type D interactions. Because there no significant interactions in predicting symptom measures, interactions were excluded.

So they failed to confirm their hypothesis and cherry picked their post-hoc model.

Which by the way, was not statistically significant after correcting for multiple comparisons.

While results indicated two significant interactions at the .05 level, we treat the results cautiously given that
they were not significant at the Bonferroni adjusted .002 level.

They try to explain it with:

There are several possible explanations for the observed differences. First, it may be that merely having a chronic illness is sufficient to make people experience more negative emotions and reduce engagement in social interactions. Second, pre-morbid Type D individuals are likely to engage in fewer positive health behaviors than pre-morbid non-Type D’s; thus Type D may contribute to acquiring a chronic illness. Third, the trend in the data
suggesting higher levels of negative affect and social inhibition in people with a functional somatic syndrome amplifies, or may reflect, the psychological mechanisms of the conditions

But given that the only significant finding was those with chronic illnesses had higher scores, I'd say their speculations are just that.

So another crap study (non-representitive convenience sample, no formal diagnosis etc.), with null results.
 
Messages
20
Omg, I am a psych prof & also statistician. I never even heard of type D personality! As for the sampling method-pathetic! As for the statistics, I have to read the entire paper but it doesn't look like statistical modeling (that is based on much more advanced methods, such as those quantitative doc students learn late in their studies ), but rather look pretty much 2nd semester stats, stuff that can be done in excel. Still, whatever the stat methods, the sampling technique is unacceptable. Don't believe most of what u read in journals, especially medical journals! Drs generally dislike variables because they vary. That's why they dislike syndromes
 
Messages
20
Ps one of my docs used to quote me "EVERYTHING IS A SYNDROME," Even my dad's cancer. He and his friend had the same kind at the same time and the outcomes both vastly differed and were both opposite of what was expected (like they traded bodies). As my mentor said, the correct answer is always, "it depends!"