Cited by 32Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsCOVID-19 and Mental Health

Attentional bias toward health-threat in health anxiety: a systematic review and three-level meta-analysis

Shi, Congrong, Taylor, Steven, Witthöft, Michael, Du, Xiayu, Zhang, Tao, Lu, Shan, Ren, Zhihong·2022·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Attentional bias toward health-threat may theoretically contribute to the development and maintenance of health anxiety, but the empirical findings have been controversial. This study aimed to synthesize and explore the heterogeneity in a health-threat related attentional bias of health-anxious individuals, and to determine the theoretical model that better represents the pattern of attentional bias in health anxiety. Four databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus) were searched for relevant studies, with 17 articles (N = 1546) included for a qualitative review and 16 articles (18 studies) for a three-level meta-analysis (N = 1490). The meta-analytic results indicated that the health anxiety group, compared to the control group, showed significantly greater attentional bias toward health-threat (g = 0.256). Further analyses revealed that attentional bias type, paradigm, and stimuli type were significant moderators. Additionally, compared to the controls, health-anxious individuals displayed significantly greater attention maintenance (g = 0.327) but nonsignificant attention vigilance to health-threat (g = −0.116). Our results provide evidence for the attention maintenance model in health-anxious individuals. The implications for further research and treatment of elevated health anxiety in the context of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) were also discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291721005432

Cites

68 of 68 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?

  • Attentional bias towards health-threat related stimuli is strongly associated with health anxiety in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis.

    “A key contribution to this misinterpretation is an attentional bias towards health-threat related stimuli, which has shown to be strongly associated with health anxiety in a recent systematic review and meta-analysis [46].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shi, C., Taylor, S., Witthöft, M., Du, X., Zhang, T., Lu, S., & Ren, Z.
Affiliations
  • Central China Normal University (CN)
  • University of British Columbia (CA)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Ren, Zhihong
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2022-01-10
Volume
52
Issue
4
Pages
604-613
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W4205977150
Cited by
32
References
68
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 12 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 3
FWCI
1.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Key Program of Institute of Wuhan Studies of Jianghan University (IWHS20201007)
Topics
  • 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
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
Keywords
health anxiety, attentional bias, health hazards, sustained attention, COVID-19 pandemic, anxiety maintenance
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, COVID-19, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans

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