CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 33Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive ProcessesMental Health Research TopicsObsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders

The relations among worry, meta-worry, intolerance of uncertainty and attentional bias for threat in men at high risk for generalized anxiety disorder: a network analysis

Open access
Ren, Lei, Yang, Zhou, Wang, Yidi, Cui, Long-Biao, Jin, Yinchuan, Ma, Zhujing, Zhang, Qintao, Wu, Zhongying +2 more·2020·BMC Psychiatry
DOI 10.1186/s12888-020-02849-wPMC PMC7491186
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Background: Improving the psychotherapies for generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is dependent on a deeper understanding of the relations between GAD and its associated cognitive factors. In the present study, we investigate how the core feature of GAD (i.e., worry) and its associated cognitive factors, such as meta-worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and attention bias towards threat, relate to each other in men at high risk for GAD. Methods: We used network analysis to explore the relations among these variables in a cross-sectional sample of 122 men at high risk for generalized anxiety disorder. Specifically, we computed the expected influence and predictability of each variable. Results: In the final network, we found that worry and meta-worry had the highest expected influence and predictability. In contrast, attention bias towards threat showed the lowest expected influence and predictability. The estimates of the expected influence of the nodes were stable (correlation stability coefficient = 0.52). Conclusions: The present study is the first to investigate the relations among worry, meta-worry, intolerance of uncertainty, and attention bias towards threat in men at high risk for generalized anxiety disorder. These findings indicate that worry and meta-worry may play important roles in the present network. The implications for clinical interventions and future studies are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1186/s12888-020-02849-w

Cites

103 of 103 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Generalized anxiety disorder was marked by excessive reactivity and inflexible beliefs about the utility of worry to protect oneself from sharp increases in negative emotions rather than mindfully allowing emotions to ebb and flow.

    “This proposition is based on consistent evidence that GAD was marked by excessive reactivity and inflexible beliefs about the “utility” of worry to protect oneself from sharp increases in negative emotions rather than mindfully allowing emotions to ebb and flow [19, 20].”

    From Treatment condition as a moderator and change in trait mindfulness as a mediator of a brief mindfulness ecological momentary intervention for generalized anxiety disorder (2024) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Background describes worry as a way to cope with perceived threats and reports positive beliefs about its utility, such as helping a person prepare in advance. It does not say that GAD is marked by excessive emotional reactivity or that worry protects against sharp increases in negative emotion; nor does it discuss mindfully allowing emotions to ebb and flow. It also says positive beliefs about worry are not necessarily pathological. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Ren, L., Yang, Z., Wang, Y., Cui, L.-B., Jin, Y., Ma, Z., Zhang, Q., Wu, Z., Wang, H.-N., & Yang, Q.
Affiliations
  • Air Force Medical University (CN)
  • University of Washington (US)
  • Northern Arizona University (US)
Corresponding author
Yang, Qun
ORCID
Venue
BMC Psychiatry
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-09-14
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
452-452
ISSN
1471-244X (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s12888-020-02849-w
PMC
PMC7491186
OpenAlex
W3084872971
Cited by
33
References
102
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 5
FWCI
3.39
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMC Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Key Research and Development Program of Shaanxi Province (2020SF-245)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Mental Health Research Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Obsessive-Compulsive Spectrum Disorders
Keywords
generalized anxiety disorder, worry, meta-worry, intolerance of uncertainty, cognitive factors, symptom networks
MeSH terms
Attentional Bias, Anxiety, Anxiety Disorders, Cross-Sectional Studies, Humans, Male, Uncertainty

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