DOI 10.1016/j.jpsychores.2024.111803
Exploring the retrospective and prospective associations between the big five personality traits and clinical diagnosis of angina in middle-aged and older adults.
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE
The goal of the present research was to test the retrospective and prospective associations between the Big Five personality traits and clinical diagnosis of angina while controlling for demographic characteristics.
METHODS
Data from middle-aged and older adults from a cohort study Understanding Society: the UK Household Longitudinal Study (UKHLS) were extracted and analyzed using binary logistic regressions (N = 10,124 for the retrospective study and N = 5485 for the prospective study). Personality was measured using a self-report 15-item version of the Big Five inventory between 2011 and 2012. Angina was measured by a self-report clinical diagnosis history question in each wave from until 2019. Covariates in our models included age, sex, income (monthly), education, and marital status.
RESULTS
Neuroticism was positively related to the likelihood of clinical angina diagnosis in both the retrospective (OR = 1.22, 95% C.I. [1.11, 1.34]) and the prospective (OR = 1.52, 95% C.I. [1.19, 1.94]) study whereas Extraversion had a positive association with odds of angina (OR = 1.52, 95% C.I. [1.17, 1.97]) in the prospective study only. The negative association between Openness and clinical angina diagnosis in the cross-sectional analysis is borderline significant (OR = 0.91, p = 0.048, 95% C.I. [0.83, 1.00]).
CONCLUSION
Our research indicated that personality traits are associated with the risk of angina. These findings emphasize the importance of considering personality traits in understanding the etiology of angina and potentially informing personalized prevention and intervention strategies.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
Подготовка и перевод публикации
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Тип публикации указан по данным источника. Уровень доказательности автоматически не присваивается.