Cited by 27Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesPsychological Treatments and AssessmentsCancer survivorship and care

Treating Illness Distress in Chronic Illness: Integrating Mental Health Approaches With Illness Self-Management

Open access
Hudson, Joanna L., Moss-Morris, Rona·2019·European Psychologist

Abstract

Abstract. Cognitive-behavioral therapy (CBT) is an evidence-based treatment for depression and anxiety recommended for those with and without physical long-term conditions (LTCs). However, the cognitive-behavioral mechanisms targeted in CBT protocols are based on empirical cognitive-behavioral models of depression and anxiety. In these models, emotions are conceptualized as primary mental health disorders rather than a reaction to the challenges of living with a LTC commonly referred to as illness distress. This raises important clinical questions with theoretical implications. These include: Is the experience of illness distress conceptually distinct from primary mental health diagnoses of anxiety and mood disorder? Are there unique cognitive-behavioral mechanisms related to illness self-management, which should be incorporated into CBT for illness distress? How can illness self-management interventions be embedded within existing CBT protocols for depression and anxiety? To address these questions, we distinguish between primary mental health disorders and illness distress conceptually and explore the impact of this on tailored treatment planning and engagement. Second, we review how health psychology theoretical models can help to inform modifications of existing cognitive-behavioral treatments for anxiety and depression to better support the needs of individuals experiencing illness distress. Third, we provide examples of how to embed processes important for illness self-management including, illness cognitions and adherence, alongside existing CBT techniques. The mechanisms and intervention techniques discussed may help to inform the development of integrated CBT treatments for illness distress for future hypothesis testing in comparative effectiveness trials.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1027/1016-9040/a000352

Cites

67 of 67 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The text we found for this paper looks like another document, so the self-check wasn’t run.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hudson, J. L., & Moss-Morris, R.
Affiliations
King's College London (GB)
Venue
European Psychologist
Published
2019-01
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
26-37
ISSN
  • 1016-9040 (ISSN-L)
  • 1878-531X
OpenAlex
W2914141747
Cited by
27
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3
FWCI
4.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
other-oa
Locations
  • European Psychologist (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Psychological Treatments and Assessments
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
chronic disease, cognitive behavioral therapy, depression, anxiety, illness self-management, illness cognitions, medication adherence, treatment engagement

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