| Summary: | 碩士 === 輔仁大學 === 心理學系 === 93 === Research background & aim: Considering researches about stress on headache haven’t completed which they have just studied parts of variables in stress process, so this study has two purposes. The first purpose was to investigate differences and specialty in each stress variables among migraine headache (MH), tension-type headache (TH) and control group. Variables of stress included personality factors, density of daily hassles, appraisals and coping of daily hassles, effectiveness and satisfaction of coping and emotional outcomes. We also investigate differences in subjective characteristics of headache, appraisals of headache, coping with headache, effectiveness and satisfaction of headache coping between MH and TH groups. Furthermore, based on transactional model of stress of Lazarus and Folkman, the second purpose of this study was to test pattern of relationship of stress variables in MH or TH groups.
Methods: Fifty MH suffers, forty-five TH suffers, and forty-one controls were scheduled in our study. Both of headache participators were asked to complete a package questionnaires there included the demographic data, the Daily Hassle Scale, the Cognitive Appraisal of Daily Hassle, the Coping Strategies Inventory, the Cognitive Appraisal of headache, the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory, the Emotion Inventory, and the NEO PI-R. The control group had also completed those questionnaires except the Cognitive Appraisal of headache and the Chronic Pain Coping Inventory. For examining the hypothesis of this study, the independent-samples t test, the Chi-square, one-way ANOVA, the logistic regression, and the canonical correlation were conducted for statistics analysis.
Result: (1) In terms of personality, MH group had significantly higher scores on neuroticism, anxiety, anger hostility, depression and lower scores on extraversion, warmth, and gregariousness than controls. TH group had significantly higher scores on neuroticism and anxiety and lower scores on deliberation than controls. (2) MH group reported higher frequency, severity and density of daily hassles than control group. (3) In appraisals of daily hassles, MH group perceived more importance, threat, motivational incongruence and less control, effectiveness, emotion-focused coping potential than control group, but TH group perceived only more importance than control group, MH group perceived more threat than TH group. (4) MH and TH suffers had different pain characteristics such as pain location. (5) In copings with daily hassles, MH group reported greater use of self criticism, social withdraw, and emotion disengagement than control group. TH group reported fewer use of social support than control group. MH group perceived lower effectiveness of coping than control group. (6) In ways of coping with headache, MH group were more than TH group in days of taking medications, but two groups did not differ in effectiveness and satisfaction of coping. (7) Compared to controls, MH group showed higher levels of extensive worry, somatic worry, depression, disquiet and dysthymia. Compared to controls, TH group showed higher level of somatic worry. MH showed higher level of dysthymia than TH group. (8) Logistic regression revealed that: (a) Personality of anxiety and gregariousness, and appraisals of threat reliably differentiated MH and controls; (b) Personality of anxiety, appraisals of importance and emotion-focused coping potential and coping of social support reliably differentiated TH and controls; (c) Severity of daily hassles and appraisals of threat reliably differentiated two headache groups. (9) In the MH group, results of canonical correlation indicated that: (a) higher neuroticism and frequency and severity of daily hassles were associated with higher negative appraisal; (b) lower positive appraisal was associated with fewer use of engagement and more use of disengagement coping; (c) more use of disengagement coping was associated with lower effectiveness of coping and higher negative emotion. In the TH group, results of canonical correlation indicated that: (a) higher neuroticism and frequency and severity of daily hassles were associated with higher negative and lower positive appraisal; (b) higher negative appraisal was associated with more use of engagement and disengagement coping; (c) lower positive appraisal was associated with more use of disengagement coping; (d) more use of engagement and disengagement coping were associated with higher negative emotion.
Conclusions: Our results showed MH, TH and control groups differed in term of personality, daily hassles, appraisal, coping, effectiveness of coping, and emotions. From the stress model and canonical correlation results, we confirmed that variables of stress presented the contributions on two types of headache in the different combinations each other. This finding can also suggest using in clinical practice as therapeutic regimens on headache patients.
|
|---|
