Cited by 30Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsCOVID-19 and Mental Health

Interpretation bias in health anxiety: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Du, Xiayu, Witthöft, Michael, Zhang, Tao, Shi, Congrong, Ren, Zhihong·2023·Psychological Medicine

Abstract

Interpretation bias (i.e. the selective negative interpretation of ambiguous stimuli) may contribute to the development and maintenance of health anxiety. However, the strength of the empirical evidence for this association remains a topic of debate. This study aimed to estimate the association between health anxiety and interpretation bias and to identify potential moderators of this association. Chinese-language databases (CNKI, VIP, and Wanfang), English-language databases (Web of Science, PubMed, PsycINFO, and Scopus), and German-language databases (Psyndex and PubPsych) were searched for relevant studies. There were 36 articles (39 studies) identified by this search (N = 8984), of which 32 articles (34 studies) were included in the meta-analysis (N = 8602). Results revealed a medium overall effect size (g = 0.67). Statistically equivalent effect sizes were observed for patients diagnosed with clinical health anxiety (g = 0.58) and subclinical health anxiety (g = 0.72). The effect sizes for threat stimuli that were health related (g = 0.68) and not health related (g = 0.63) did not differ significantly. The effect size for studies using an offline paradigm (g = 0.75) was significantly higher than that for studies using an online paradigm (g = 0.50). It is concluded that health anxiety is significantly and robustly associated with interpretation bias. These findings are of central importance for the advancement of models and treatment of health anxiety.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0033291722003427

Cites

80 of 80 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?

  • Health-anxious individuals experience more frequent and intense illness-related intrusive thoughts and demonstrate a selective negative interpretation bias of these thoughts or sensations.

    “Health-anxious individuals have also been shown to experience more frequent and intense illness-related intrusive thoughts [47, 48], and to demonstrate a selective negative interpretation bias of these thoughts or sensations [49].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Du, X., Witthöft, M., Zhang, T., Shi, C., & Ren, Z.
Affiliations
  • Central China Normal University (CN)
  • Johannes Gutenberg University Mainz (DE)
Corresponding author
Ren, Zhihong
Venue
Psychological Medicine
Published
2022-11-09
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
34-45
ISSN
  • 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-8978
OpenAlex
W4308603382
Cited by
30
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 2
FWCI
0.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
interpretation bias, health anxiety, threat interpretation, ambiguous stimuli, threat appraisal
MeSH terms
Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Humans, Bias

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