No abstract

Social anxiety disorder (SAD) is the most common anxiety disorder and has considerable negative impact on social functioning, quality of life, and career progression of those affected. Gelotophobia (the fear of being laughed at) shares many similarities and has therefore been proposed as a subtype of SAD. This hypothesis has, however, never been tested in a clinical sample. Thus, the relationship between gelotophobia, SAD and avoidant personality disorder (APD) was investigated by examining a sample of 133 participants (64 psychiatric patients and 69 healthy controls matched for age and sex) using the Structured Clinical Interview for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (4th edition) and an established rating instrument for gelotophobia (GELOPH<15>). As expected, gelotophobia scores and the number of gelotophobic individuals were significantly higher among patients with SAD (n = 22) and APD (n = 12) compared to healthy controls and other psychiatric patients. Furthermore, gelotophobia scores were highest in patients suffering from both SAD and APD. In fact, all patients suffering from both disorders were also suffering from gelotophobia. As explained in the discussion, the observed data did not suggest that gelotophobia is a subtype of SAD. The findings rather imply that the fear of being laughed at is a symptom characteristic for both SAD and APD. Based on that, gelotophobia may prove to be a valuable additional diagnostic criterion for SAD and APD and the present results also contribute to the ongoing debate on the relationship between SAD and APD.

Background: Psychiatric inpatients receive a multidisciplinary treatment approach, covering psychiatry, nursing, occupational therapy, and psychology. Research findings reveal that the effectiveness of any treatment is associated with three types of factors: specific (e.g., treatment techniques), common (e.g., clinician-patient relationship, patients' expectations) and extra-therapeutic. However, there is little published research on the factors and events which inpatients themselves consider to be beneficial ('beneficial moments'). Methods: Inpatients (N = 107) of a psychiatric clinic completed a questionnaire to elicit their appraisal of beneficial moments. A qualitative content analysis was applied. The coding procedure was conducted independently by two authors. Results: Self-appraised beneficial moments were found in five areas: therapy-specific components (number of quotations, N = 204), positive relationships (N = 140), clinical setting and environment (N = 52), inpatients' new insights (N = 36), and factors unrelated to either therapy or the clinic (N = 30). In total, 44% of the quotations were related to specific factors, 49% to common factors, and 7% to extra-therapeutic factors. Conclusions: Inpatients judge both specific and common factors as crucial for the therapeutic benefit they gain during their stay at the clinic. Our results differ from meta-analytical findings, where the impact of specific factors on symptom improvement has shown to be much smaller (i.e., 17%) than appraised by patients in our study (i.e., 44%). Our study underlines the importance of a patient-centred care approach as well as shared decision making and patient-clinician communication. For clinical practice, knowledge of inpatients' perspectives on beneficial moments is crucial in order to reinforce precisely these therapeutic components.

No abstract

No abstract