Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41699979›Full record

ReviewClinical psychology & psychotherapy

Psychological Assessment of Illness Denial in Medical Settings: A Critical Review.

Danilo Carrozzino, Sara Gostoli

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Clinical psychology & psychotherapy. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Danilo CarrozzinoDepartment of Psychology "Renzo Canestrari", University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8164-8671
Sara GostoliDepartment of Psychology "Renzo Canestrari", University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This is the first critical review to assess the clinimetric properties, particularly the sensitivity (i.e., the ability to detect changes in clinical trials and yield clinical distinctions that may demarcate major prognostic and therapeutic differences), and to determine the clinical utility of instruments of illness denial in patients with medical disorders. A comprehensive search of the literature was performed on several databases. Patient-reported outcome measures and clinician-rated instruments of illness denial were identified and analysed. The findings indicate that the Acceptance and Action Diabetes Questionnaire and the Denial of Illness Scale can be used as screening tools to early detect diabetes and stroke patients at increased risk for clinical complications. The Diagnostic Criteria for Psychosomatic Research and the Levine Denial of Illness Scale are transdiagnostic instruments that are particularly suitable to identify the maladaptive manifestations of illness denial and its affective, behavioural and cognitive components. The Illness Denial Questionnaire, particularly the eight-item version of the instrument, is another transdiagnostic measure that may be better suited for the evaluation of illness denial severity. The Denial of Cancer Interview can be used for a longitudinal monitoring of illness denial, whereas the Hackett-Cassem Denial Scale is recommended to assess the degree of illness denial in individuals with cardiac disorders. The use of instruments such as the Cardiac Denial of Impact Scale, the Denial Questionnaire and the Havik and Mæland Denial Scale, which were found to have considerable prognostic utility, may help patients promptly recognize and respond to life-threatening diseases.

Indexed as

Denial, PsychologicalHumansPsychometricsSurveys and Questionnairesassessmentclinical utilityclinimetricsillness denialmedical disordersstaging

Identifiers

PMID41699979
PMCPMC12910258

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.