论文部分内容阅读
目的：探讨药物治疗和心理干预对抑郁症患者认知偏差及应对方式的影响。方法选择2012年4月至2013年4月山西医科大学第一医院收治的66例抑郁症患者为研究组，分别于住院当日和出院当日评定汉密尔顿抑郁量表（HAMD）、自动思维问卷（ATQ）、功能失调性态度问卷（DAS）、简易应对方式问卷和正性负性情绪量表，并与70名健康志愿者（对照组）进行比较。结果（1）研究组住院前后 HAMD 总分、ATQ 总分、消极应对方式、积极应对方式、正性情绪及负性情绪差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。（2）研究组住院前 HAMD 总分、ATQ 总分、DAS 总分及除脆弱性和强制性外的各维度、消极应对方式、积极应对方式、正性情绪及负性情绪与对照组差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）；研究组住院后 HAMD 总分、ATQ 总分、DAS 总分及除完美化的各维度、消极应对方式、积极应对方式及负性情绪与对照组差异均有统计学意义（P<0.05）。结论抑郁症患者存在认知偏差及应对方式障碍，药物治疗和心理干预对抑郁症患者的认知偏差及应对方式具有积极意义。“,”Objective To investigate the effects of medication and psychological interventions in patients with depression on cognitive bias and coping style. Methods From April 2012 to April 2013,66 patients with depression(research group) were measured with Hamilton depression scale(HAMD),automatic thoughts questionnaire(ATQ),dysfunctional attitudes scales(DAS), coping style questionnaire and positive affect and negative affect scale(PANAS)before and after treatment. 70 normal controls (control group) were measured. Results 1.T test showed that, research group with HAMD total score, ATQ total score, negative coping style, positive coping style, positive affect and negative affect were significantly different before and after treatment(P<0.05). 2.T test showed that, before treatment, research group with HAMD total score, ATQ total score, DAS total score and every dimension except frangibility and mandatory, negative coping style, positive coping style, positive affect and negative affect were significantly different with the control group(P<0.05). After treatment, research group with HAMD total score, ATQ total score, DAS total score and every dimension except consummation, negative coping style, positive coping style and negative affect were significantly different with the control group. Conclusion The results showed that cognitive bias and coping style dysfunction exists in patients with depression, psychological intervention is benefited for cognition bias and coping style.