ArticleInternational journal of methods in psychiatric research2021
Patients responses to diagnoses of mental disorders: Development and validation of a reliable self-report measure.
Article in International journal of methods in psychiatric research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Influences on prescribing in borderline personality disorder: insights from health care professionals: a qualitative interview study.BMC psychiatry · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesPsychiatric patients are regularly informed about diagnoses. Treatment guidelines assume that informing patients fosters functional coping processes, but few research exists on how patients respond. Thus, the objective was to develop a standardized self-report measure to assess patients reactions to diagnoses.
methodsFifty nine items were generated based on a qualitative study. The process of item selection and determination of the factor structure were performed on a sample of 252 patients: Results of an explorative factor analysis with a randomly split sub-sample 1 were cross-validated by confirmatory factor analysis on sub-sample 2. The revised 26-item instrument was revaluated using data from an independent sample of 1.271 patients with different diagnoses.
resultsThree functional and three dysfunctional processing styles emerged from the analyses and provided good model fit in the revaluation study (TLI = 0.935; CFI = 0.943; RMSEA = 0.051; SRMR = 0.048). Variance-analytical calculations and post hoc analyses revealed significant differences among diagnoses with regard to coping styles, such as schizophrenia was associated with self-stigmatization and anorexia nervosa showed pronounced over-identification. Overall, various diagnosis-dependent specifics were found.
conclusionsAs patients reactions to diagnoses vary substantially, their formation, impact on treatment and overall cause should be investigated in further studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.