Cited by 98COVID-19 and Mental HealthAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments

The prospective influence of COVID-19 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty on later dimensions of health anxiety

Open access
Tull, Matthew T., Barbano, Anna C., Scamaldo, Kayla M., Richmond, Julia R., Edmonds, Keith A., Rose, Jason P., Gratz, Kim L.·2020·Journal of Anxiety Disorders

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic is likely to increase risk for the development of health anxiety. Given that elevated health anxiety can contribute to maladaptive health behaviors, there is a need to identify individual difference factors that may increase health anxiety risk. This study examined the unique and interactive relations of COVID-19 affective risk assessments (worry about risk for contracting/dying from COVID-19) and intolerance of uncertainty to later health anxiety dimensions. A U.S. community sample of 364 participants completed online self-report measures at a baseline assessment (Time 1) and one month later (Time 2). Time 1 intolerance of uncertainty was uniquely associated with the Time 2 health anxiety dimension of body vigilance. Time 1 affective risk assessments and intolerance of uncertainty were uniquely associated with later perceived likelihood that an illness would be acquired and anticipated negative consequences of an illness. The latter finding was qualified by a significant interaction, such that affective risk assessments were positively associated with anticipated negative consequences of having an illness only among participants with mean and low levels of intolerance of uncertainty. Results speak to the relevance of different risk factors for health anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic and highlight targets for reducing health anxiety risk.

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 · 10.1016/j.janxdis.2020.102290

Cites

67 of 67 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?

  • Tull et al. (2020) found that intolerance of uncertainty only moderated the association between COVID-19 affective risk assessments and health anxiety at low and mean levels, with no significant association at high levels.

    “Tull et al. found that IU only moderated the association between COVID-19 affective risk assessments and health anxiety at low and mean levels — there was no significant association at high levels of IU.”

    From Anxiety Sensitivity Mediates Relations Between Mental Distress Symptoms and Medical Care Utilization During COVID-19 Pandemic. (2021) · cites this paper as Tull et al.’s (2020)

    The Results (Primary analyses) report a significant association between COVID-19 affective risk and later illness severity at low and mean levels of intolerance of uncertainty, but not at high levels. The Discussion says intolerance of uncertainty did not moderate the associations with the other two health-anxiety dimensions, illness likelihood and body vigilance. The claim is therefore accurate for illness severity but overgeneralizes the finding to health anxiety as a whole. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Intolerance of uncertainty biases information processing, leading to faulty appraisals of threat, and reduces coping abilities.

    “It is a cognitive, emotional, and behavioral tendency to react negatively to uncertain or ambiguous situations and unpredictable future events [57,58], which biases information processing, leading to faulty appraisals of threat, and reduces coping abilities [59].”

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

4 of the 71 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Barlow D.H. Anxiety and its disorders 2002 Guilford Press New York

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tull, M. T., Barbano, A. C., Scamaldo, K. M., Richmond, J. R., Edmonds, K. A., Rose, J. P., & Gratz, K. L.
Affiliations
University of Toledo (US)
Corresponding author
Tull, Matthew T.
Venue
Journal of Anxiety Disorders
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
75
Pages
102290
ISSN
0887-6185 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3048683406
Cited by
98
References
71
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 27 · 2020: 2
FWCI
7.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Anxiety Disorders (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
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Keywords
health anxiety, COVID-19 pandemic, intolerance of uncertainty, body vigilance, individual differences, mental health during pandemic
MeSH terms
Betacoronavirus, COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Pneumonia, Viral, Prospective Studies, Health Behavior, Coronavirus Infections, Risk Assessment, Uncertainty, Young Adult, Self Report, Pandemics

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