CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 95Mental Health via WritingPsychosomatic Disorders and Their TreatmentsPosttraumatic Stress Disorder Research

Effects of guided written disclosure of stressful experiences on clinic visits and symptoms in frequent clinic attenders

Gidron, Y.·2002·Family Practice
DOI 10.1093/fampra/19.2.161
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Psychosocial variables such as major stressful life events/daily stressful events have been associated with health care utilization. OBJECTIVE: Our aim was to examine the effects of a guided disclosure protocol (GDP) of past traumas on symptoms and clinic visits among frequent clinic attenders. METHODS: Forty-one frequent clinic attenders (> or =2 visits/3 months) took part. Patients were randomly assigned individually to either a casual content writing control group (n = 19) or a trauma content writing experimental GDP group (n = 22). GDP patients wrote about an upsetting event chronologically (day 1), verbally described their thoughts and feelings and described the event's impact on life (day 2), and finally wrote about their current perspective on and future coping with the event (day 3). Three months later, patients were reassessed blindly for symptoms and clinic visits, and an average of 15 months later they were assessed blindly for clinic visits again. RESULTS: Compared with controls, GDP patients reported lower symptom levels at 3 months (2.3 versus 5.2), and made fewer clinic visits during the 3 (1.3 versus 3.0) and 15 month (5.1 versus 9.7) follow-ups. The percentage of GDP patients making > or =10 visits during the 15 month follow-up was smaller (10%) than among controls (33%). CONCLUSIONS: The findings extend previous findings to frequent clinic users, using a new form of written disclosure aimed at shifting trauma from implicit to explicit memory. The GDP may be an inexpensive additional intervention in primary care for reducing symptoms and clinic visits among frequent clinic users.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1093/fampra/19.2.161

Cites

26 of 26 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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Gidron, Y.
Affiliations
Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Gidron, Y.
Venue
Family Practice
Publisher
Oxford University Press (OUP)
Published
2002-04-01
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
161-166
ISSN
  • 0263-2136 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-2229
DOI
10.1093/fampra/19.2.161
OpenAlex
W2033260390
Cited by
95
References
25
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
7.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Family Practice (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Johns Hopkins University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Mental Health via Writing
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Psychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Posttraumatic Stress Disorder Research
Keywords
traumatic life events, health care utilization, symptom relief, primary care intervention, coping
MeSH terms
Adult, Analysis of Variance, Female, Humans, Male, Primary Health Care, Prospective Studies, Self Disclosure, Somatoform Disorders, Stress, Psychological, Writing, Chi-Square Distribution, Patient Satisfaction

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