Cited by 159COVID-19 and Mental HealthAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesRisk Perception and Management

Psychological Predictors of Health Anxiety in Response to the Zika Virus

Open access
Blakey, Shannon M., Abramowitz, Jonathan S.·2017·Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings

Abstract

The threat of a United States (U.S.) Zika virus pandemic during 2015-2016 was associated with public anxiety. Such threats represent opportunities to examine hypotheses about health anxiety. The present study investigated psychological predictors of Zika-related anxiety during the 2015-2016 outbreak. U.S. adults (N = 216) completed a battery of measures assessing Zika-related anxiety as well as psychological variables hypothesized to predict anxious responding to the threat of a domestic Zika outbreak. Contrary to hypotheses, regression analyses indicated that only contamination severity overestimates and greater Zika knowledge significantly predicted Zika-related anxiety. Study limitations and clinical implications are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s10880-017-9514-y

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Higher levels of anxiety sensitivity-physical concerns and intolerance of uncertainty were observed in the present sample compared with previous pandemic studies.

    “As compared to previous pandemic studies, levels of AS-physical concerns in the present sample (M = 7.30, SD = 5.88) were significantly higher than those found by Wheaton et al. (2012): M = 3.63 (4.14), t(770) = 9.56, 95% CI [2.92, 4.42], p < .000; Blakey and Abramowitz (2017): M = 4.42 (4.52), t(671) = 6.36, 95% CI [1.99, 3.77], p < .000; and Blakey et al. (2015): M = 4.34 (4.29), t(562) = 4.91, 95% CI [1.78, 4.14], p < .001.”
  • The authors report that levels of health anxiety and depression, anxiety, and stress were significantly higher in the sample than in prior studies.

    “Levels of health anxiety as measured by the SHAI also were significantly higher in the present sample (M = 16.84, SD = 8.08) as compared to Wheaton et al. (2012): M = 12.03 (6.75), t(770) = 8.68, 95% CI [3.72, 5.90], p < .000, and Blakey and Abramowitz (2017): M = 12.44 (5.75), t(671) = 7.19, 95% CI [3.20, 5.60], p < .000.”
  • Health anxiety as measured by the SHAI was significantly higher in the present sample than in two prior studies.

    “Levels of health anxiety as measured by the SHAI also were significantly higher in the present sample (M = 16.84, SD = 8.08) as compared to Wheaton et al. (2012)”
  • In the present sample, anxiety sensitivity physical concerns were significantly higher than in three prior pandemic studies (Wheaton et al., 2012; Blakey and Abramowitz, 2017; Blakey et al., 2015).

    “levels of AS-physical concerns in the present sample (M = 7.30, SD = 5.88) were significantly higher than those found by Wheaton et al. (2012)”
  • Existing literature suggests that obsessive-compulsive contamination and/or health anxiety symptoms are associated with greater anxiety about prior public health concerns among university-affiliated samples.

    “existing literature suggests that obsessive-compulsive contamination and/or health anxiety symptoms are associated with greater anxiety about prior public health concerns among university-affiliated samples (Wheaton et al., 2012; Blakey et al., 2015; Blakey and Abramowitz, 2017).”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Blakey, S. M., & Abramowitz, J. S.
Affiliations
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill (US)
Corresponding author
Blakey, Shannon M.
Venue
Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings
Published
2017-10-23
Volume
24
Issue
3-4
Pages
270-278
ISSN
  • 1068-9583 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3572
OpenAlex
W2766680409
Cited by
159
References
56
Citations by year
2025: 3 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 42 · 2021: 59 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1
FWCI
9.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Psychology in Medical Settings (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Risk Perception and Management
Keywords
Zika virus, health anxiety, pandemic anxiety, health knowledge, psychological predictors, public health risk
MeSH terms
Zika Virus Infection, Zika Virus, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Attitude to Health, Disease Outbreaks, Female, Humans, Health Knowledge, Attitudes, Practice, Male, Middle Aged, Surveys and Questionnaires, United States, Southeastern United States, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review