No abstract

No abstract

BackgroundType D personality, or the “distressed personality”, is a psychosocial factor associated with negative health outcomes, although its impact in younger populations is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of Type D personality and the associations between Type D personality and psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain among adolescences.MethodsA population-based, self-reported cross-sectional study conducted in Västmanland, Sweden with a cohort of 5012 students in the age between 15–18 years old. The participants completed the anonymous questionnaire Survey of Adolescent Life in Västmanland 2008 during class hour. Psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain were measured through index measuring the presence of symptoms and how common they were. DS14 and its two component subscales of negative affectivity (NA) and social inhibition (SI) were measured as well.ResultsThere was a difference depending on sex, where 10.4% among boys and 14.6% among girls (p = < 0.001) were defined as Type D personality. Boys and girls with a Type D personality had an approximately 2-fold increased odds of musculoskeletal pain and a 5-fold increased odds of psychosomatic symptoms. The subscale NA explained most of the relationship between Type D personality and psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain. No interaction effect of NA and SI was found.ConclusionsThere was a strong association between Type D personality and both psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain where adolescent with a type D personality reported more symptoms. The present study contributes to the mapping of the influence of Type D on psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain among adolescents.

This study examined the prevalence of Type D personality and the temporal stability, internal consistency, and construct validity of the DS14 at three time points after myocardial infarction. The prevalence was 14.0% during hospitalization, 25.1% at 1 month, and 19.2% at 12 months. A total of 6.1% of the patients were classified as Type D personality at all three assessments, whereas 68.4% were stable non-Type D and 25.6% changed between personality classifications. The DS14 had stable structural validity, but low temporal stability over time, especially from hospitalization to the 1-month and 12-month follow-ups (κ = 0.365 and 0.397, respectively).

Aims.  The overall aim of this study was to gain knowledge about how nursing staff treat and communicate with residents who talk about death and about their reasons for their treatment as well as to investigate how staff explain residents' reasons for talking about death. Background.  Studies have established that nursing staff have problems in dealing with patients who talk about death and that staff do not know how they should relate to talking about death. Method.  A qualitative explorative design. Interviews with staff were performed and analysed using a qualitative content analysis. Findings.  Staff descriptions of their various ways of dealing with a situation in which residents talk about death could be divided into two qualitatively different main categories: 'allow and facilitate talk about death' and 'avoid talk about death'. The most common explanation provided by staff in all categories was that they acted the way they did because they did not know how to address discussions about death. Staff members' descriptions of residents' reasons for talking about death were quite different. Conclusions.  The study indicates that nursing staff need to reflect on their own attitudes towards death and that they need to develop further. Their behaviour may depend on each staff member's individual attitudes and development. Nursing staff need training in and knowledge about how to communicate with residents who talk about death. This knowledge could be acquired through training, guidance and joint reflection in groups.