Cited by 61Gastrointestinal motility and disordersPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsInfant Health and Development

Psychosocial predictors of irritable bowel syndrome diagnosis and symptom severity

Phillips, Kristy, Wright, Bradley J., Kent, Stephen·2013·Journal of Psychosomatic Research

Abstract

Objective This study explored the role of psychosocial factors in predicting both membership to either an irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) or control group, and the severity of IBS symptoms.Methods A total of 149 participants (82 IBS and 67 controls) completed a battery of self-report inventories assessing disposition and environment, cognitive processes, and psychological distress. Logistic regression analyses were used to assess predictive contribution of psychosocial variables to IBS diagnosis. Hierarchical linear regression was then used to assess the relationship of psychosocial variables with the severity of IBS symptoms.Results Significant predictors of IBS were found to be alexithymia, the defectiveness/shame schema, and four coping dimensions (active coping, instrumental support, self-blame, and positive reframing), χ(2) (6, N=130)=46.99, p<.001, with predictive accuracy of 72%. Significant predictors of IBS symptom severity were two of the alexithymia subscales (difficulty identifying feelings, and difficulty describing feelings), gender, the schemas of defectiveness/shame and entitlement, and global psychological distress. This model predicted IBS severity F (6, 64)=16.94, p<.001 and accounted for 61.3% of the variability in IBS severity scores.Conclusion Psychosocial variables account for a large percentage of the differences between an IBS and control group, as well as the variance of symptoms experienced within the IBS group. Alexithymia and the defectiveness schema appear to be related to both IBS and symptom severity.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2013.08.002

Cites

93 of 93 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 94 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Phillips, K., Wright, B. J., & Kent, S.
Affiliations
La Trobe University (AU)
Corresponding author
Kent, Stephen
Venue
Journal of Psychosomatic Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2013-11
Volume
75
Issue
5
Pages
467-474
ISSN
0022-3999 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2055963492
Cited by
61
References
94
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 2
FWCI
5.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psychosomatic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
La Trobe University, Melbourne
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Gastroenterology › Gastrointestinal motility and disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Infant Health and Development
Keywords
irritable bowel syndrome, psychosocial predictors, symptom severity, alexithymia, coping, psychological distress, gender differences, IBS diagnosis
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adult, Affective Symptoms, Female, Humans, Male, Personality Inventory, Predictive Value of Tests, Severity of Illness Index, Logistic Models, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Self Report

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