本文選題：冠心病 + 抑郁癥�。� 參考：《中國(guó)全科醫(yī)學(xué)》2016年23期

【摘要】：目的探討冠心病(CHD)與抑郁癥共患者對(duì)負(fù)性信息是否存在注意偏向。方法選取2013年5月—2014年8月在濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院附屬醫(yī)院心內(nèi)科住院的CHD患者44例,按照Zung氏抑郁自評(píng)量表(SDS)評(píng)分和臨床精神科醫(yī)生的診斷,將其分為CHD與抑郁癥共患組和單純CHD組�；颊呔鶇⒓忧榫wStroop效應(yīng)任務(wù),記錄其正確率、反應(yīng)時(shí)和干擾效應(yīng)。結(jié)果排除試驗(yàn)時(shí)身體不適、操作不當(dāng)未完成試驗(yàn)者,CHD與抑郁癥共患組13例,單純CHD組27例。對(duì)正確率進(jìn)行重復(fù)測(cè)量方差分析,結(jié)果顯示:閾限類型主效應(yīng)顯著(F=16.08,P0.001),閾上呈現(xiàn)的正確率高于閾下呈現(xiàn);組別主效應(yīng)顯著(F=6.48,P0.001),CHD與抑郁癥共患組的正確率低于單純CHD組。對(duì)反應(yīng)時(shí)進(jìn)行重復(fù)測(cè)量方差分析,結(jié)果顯示:組別主效應(yīng)顯著(F=21.68,P0.001),CHD與抑郁癥共患組反應(yīng)時(shí)長(zhǎng)于單純CHD組;詞匯類型主效應(yīng)顯著(F=83.61,P0.001),負(fù)性詞反應(yīng)時(shí)長(zhǎng)于正性詞和中性詞;閾限類型×組別交互作用顯著(F=4.34,P=0.004);組別×詞匯類型交互作用顯著(F=4.01,P=0.005),簡(jiǎn)單效應(yīng)分析發(fā)現(xiàn):CHD與抑郁癥共患組正性詞和負(fù)性詞反應(yīng)時(shí)均長(zhǎng)于單純CHD組(F=16.14,P0.001;F=17.11,P0.001);且CHD與抑郁癥共患組負(fù)性詞反應(yīng)時(shí)長(zhǎng)于正性詞和中性詞(F=10.09,P0.001)。對(duì)干擾效應(yīng)進(jìn)行重復(fù)測(cè)量方差分析,結(jié)果顯示:詞匯類型主效應(yīng)顯著(F=43.61,P0.001),負(fù)性詞的干擾效應(yīng)大于正性詞;組別×詞匯類型×閾限類型交互作用顯著(F=5.73,P=0.001)。以閾限類型為參照的進(jìn)一步分析發(fā)現(xiàn):閾上呈現(xiàn)時(shí),詞匯類型主效應(yīng)顯著(F=5.97,P=0.001);組別×詞匯類型交互作用顯著(F=6.49,P0.001),簡(jiǎn)單效應(yīng)分析發(fā)現(xiàn):兩組正性詞干擾效應(yīng)比較,差異無統(tǒng)計(jì)學(xué)意義(F=1.08,P=0.07);CHD與抑郁癥共患組負(fù)性詞干擾效應(yīng)大于單純CHD組(F=6.24,P0.001);CHD與抑郁癥共患組和單純CHD組負(fù)性詞干擾效應(yīng)均大于正性詞(F=4.40,P=0.04;F=5.45,P=0.02)。結(jié)論 CHD與抑郁癥共患者對(duì)閾上負(fù)性詞存在干擾抑制功能障礙,存在明顯的負(fù)性注意偏向。
[Abstract]:Objective to investigate whether there is attention bias to negative information in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and depression. Methods 44 cases of CHD patients hospitalized in Department of Cardiology, Affiliated Hospital of Weifang Medical University from May 2013 to August 2014, were divided into CHD and depression co developed group according to Zung's self rating depression scale (SDS) score and clinical psychiatrist's diagnosis. The patients participated in the CHD group. The patients participated in the emotional Stroop effect task, recorded the correct rate, the reaction time and the interference effect. The results excluded the physical discomfort in the test, unfinished operation unfinished, 13 cases of CHD and depression co development group and 27 cases of simple CHD group. The correct rate was repeated measurement analysis of variance, the result showed threshold type main effect was significant (F= 16.08, P0.001), the correct rate on the subliminal presentation was higher than that of the subliminal presentation; the group main effect was significant (F=6.48, P0.001). The correct rate of the CHD and the depression codeveloped group was lower than that of the CHD group. The repeated measurement of variance analysis showed that the group effect was significant (F= 21.68, P0.001), and the reaction time of CHD and depression was longer than that of the simple CHD group; the words were longer than the simple CHD group. The main effect of remittance type was significant (F=83.61, P0.001), negative words were longer than positive words and neutral words; threshold type X group interaction was significant (F=4.34, P=0.004); group x vocabulary type interaction was significant (F=4.01, P=0.005). The simple effect analysis found that both positive words and negative words in the group of CHD and depression were all longer than those of CHD group (F). =16.14, P0.001; F=17.11, P0.001); and the negative word response of CHD and depression codeveloped group was longer than positive words and neutral words (F=10.09, P0.001). Repeated measurements of variance analysis of interference effects showed that the main effect of lexical types was significant (F=43.61, P0.001), negative words were greater than positive words; group * vocabulary type X threshold type The interaction was significant (F=5.73, P=0.001). Further analysis of the threshold type was found: the main effect of the lexical type was significant (F=5.97, P=0.001) when the threshold was presented, and the interaction of the group * vocabulary type was significant (F=6.49, P0.001). The analysis of the simple effect analysis found that there was no statistical difference (F=1.08, P=0.07) in the two groups of positive words (F=1.08, P=0.07); CHD The negative word interference effect in the patients with depression was greater than that of the simple CHD group (F=6.24, P0.001), and the negative word interference effect of CHD and depression group and simple CHD group were greater than that of positive words (F=4.40, P=0.04; F=5.45, P=0.02). Conclusion CHD and depression co patients had a negative negative attention bias in the supra threshold negative words.

【作者單位】： 濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院;濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院健康風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)警治理協(xié)同創(chuàng)新中心;濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院附屬醫(yī)院心內(nèi)科;
【基金】：山東省自然科學(xué)基金資助項(xiàng)目(ZR2012CL11,ZR2014CL012) “健康山東”重大社會(huì)風(fēng)險(xiǎn)預(yù)測(cè)與治理協(xié)同創(chuàng)新中心資助項(xiàng)目(XT1407002)
【分類號(hào)】：R541.4;R749.4

【相似文獻(xiàn)】

相關(guān)期刊論文 前10條

1 畢寶林;哪些原因可引起抑郁癥?[J];解放軍健康;1999年02期

2 邵忯龍;葛志明;;抑郁癥與冠心病關(guān)系研究進(jìn)展[J];中國(guó)誤診學(xué)雜志;2007年25期

3 劉平;心血管疾病與抑郁癥[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)刊;2002年09期

4 劉梅顏,胡大一;抑郁癥與缺血性心臟病[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥導(dǎo)刊;2005年04期

5 張?jiān)?黃桂中;;抑郁癥作為冠心病影響因子的機(jī)制與治療研究進(jìn)展[J];中國(guó)臨床新醫(yī)學(xué);2012年07期

6 孫寧玲;抑郁癥與冠心病[J];中華內(nèi)科雜志;2002年11期

7 王吉云;5-羥色胺介導(dǎo)的血小板激活可能與抑郁癥患者發(fā)生急性冠脈綜合征事件有關(guān)[J];中國(guó)醫(yī)藥導(dǎo)刊;2002年03期

8 呂同華;金春霞;;抑郁癥對(duì)冠心病的影響及治療策略[J];中國(guó)民康醫(yī)學(xué);2008年15期

9 張志文;馬秀文;;抑郁癥對(duì)心血管疾病發(fā)展進(jìn)程的影響[J];現(xiàn)代醫(yī)院;2008年02期

10 周白麗;;抑郁癥與心血管疾病關(guān)系的研究進(jìn)展[J];青海醫(yī)藥雜志;2009年05期

相關(guān)重要報(bào)紙文章 前3條

1 余光明;高血壓與抑郁癥需同時(shí)治療[N];家庭醫(yī)生報(bào);2006年

2 ;心臟疾病,還常常導(dǎo)致抑郁癥[N];新華每日電訊;2006年

3 張?jiān)?國(guó)際在線;抑郁癥與心臟病關(guān)系密切[N];大眾衛(wèi)生報(bào);2006年

相關(guān)博士學(xué)位論文 前1條

1 孟霖;抑郁癥與高血壓的相關(guān)性：隊(duì)列研究的薈萃分析及NET基因啟動(dòng)子區(qū)甲基化的作用研究[D];吉林大學(xué);2014年

相關(guān)碩士學(xué)位論文 前3條

1 王雅慧;柴胡逐瘀湯治療冠心病穩(wěn)定型心絞痛（氣滯血瘀兼痰濁）伴抑郁癥患者的臨床療效觀察[D];黑龍江中醫(yī)藥大學(xué);2016年

2 郭敏;冠狀動(dòng)脈介入術(shù)后患者抑郁癥及其和預(yù)后的關(guān)系[D];延邊大學(xué);2010年

3 陳曉麗;冠心病與抑郁癥共患者情緒Stroop任務(wù)的行為學(xué)研究和ERP研究[D];濰坊醫(yī)學(xué)院;2014年

，

本文編號(hào)：1815053