Inadequate consultation behavior modulates the relationship between Type D personality and impaired health status in chronic heart failure
Abstract
Background Psychological risk factors for impaired health outcomes have been acknowledged in chronic heart failure (CHF), with Type D personality being such a risk factor. Inadequate consultation behavior, a specific aspect of self-management, might be one mechanism in explaining the adverse effect of Type D on health outcomes. In this study we examined the relationship between Type D personality, impaired disease-specific health status, and inadequate consultation behavior.Methods and results CHF outpatients (n=313) completed the Type D Scale (DS14) at baseline, and the European Heart Failure Self-care Behaviour Scale (EHFScBS) and the Minnesota Living with Heart Failure Questionnaire (MLWHFQ) at 6-month follow-up. Type D personality independently predicted inadequate consultation behavior (OR=1.80, 95%CI [1.03-3.16], p=.04) and impaired health status (OR=3.61, 95%CI [1.93-6.74], p<.001) at 6-month follow-up, adjusting for demographic and clinical variables. Inadequate consultation behavior (OR=1.80, 95%CI [1.11-2.94], p=.02) and NYHA-class (OR=2.83, 95%CI [1.17-4.71], p<.001) were associated with impaired health status, after controlling for demographics, clinical variables, and Type D personality. Post-hoc multivariable analysis pointed out that Type D patients who displayed inadequate consultation behavior were at a 6-fold increased risk of reporting impaired health status, compared to the reference group of non-Type D patients who displayed adequate consultation behavior (OR=6.06, 95%CI [2.53-14.52], p<.001).Conclusions These findings provide evidence for inadequate behavior as a mechanism that may explain the link between Type D personality and impaired health status. Future studies are warranted to elaborate on these findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Ineffective interaction with health care providers contributes to Type D-related mortality risk.
“as well as ineffective interaction with health care providers [153], contributes to Type D-related mortality risk.”
From Personality and Longevity: Knowns, Unknowns, and Implications for Public Health and Personalized Medicine (2011) · cites this paper as [153]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 39 · Cited by 96
- Authors
- Pelle, A. J., Schiffer, A. A., Smith, O. R., Widdershoven, J. W., & Denollet, J.
- Affiliations
- Tilburg University (NL)
- Elisabeth-TweeSteden Ziekenhuis (NL)
- Venue
- International Journal of Cardiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-06
- Volume
- 142
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 65-71
- ISSN
- 0167-5273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1964658073
- Cited by
- 96
- References
- 39
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 20
- FWCI
- 9.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Cardiology (publishedVersion)
- Research portal (Tilburg University) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Cardiac Health and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Cardiology and Cardiovascular Medicine › Heart Failure Treatment and Management
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
- Keywords
- Type D personality, chronic heart failure, health status, heart failure self-management, psychological risk factors, NYHA functional class
- MeSH terms
- Aged, Chronic Disease, Female, Follow-Up Studies, Health Status, Heart Failure, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Personality, Personality Inventory, Prospective Studies, Surveys and Questionnaires, Risk Factors, Behavior Control
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