• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

胆固醇检测结果的心理淡化:大学生和社区居民评估的调节因素

Psychological minimization of cholesterol test results: moderators of appraisal in college students and community residents.

作者信息

Croyle R T, Sun Y C, Louie D H

机构信息

Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City 84112.

出版信息

Health Psychol. 1993 Nov;12(6):503-7. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.12.6.503.

DOI:10.1037//0278-6133.12.6.503
PMID:8293735
Abstract

College students received randomly assigned desirable or borderline-high cholesterol test results. Borderline-high Ss rated high cholesterol as a less serious threat to health, viewed the test as less accurate, and perceived high cholesterol as more common than did those given desirable readings. High self-esteem or blunting coping style predicted lower distress after borderline-high readings but did not moderate cognitive appraisal. In Study 2, minimization was again observed among participants in a community screening, primarily among those who had never been tested. Although the never-tested group was younger and less knowledgeable about cholesterol, these factors did not account for minimization. The results support the generalizability of laboratory data on risk appraisal and provide new evidence regarding the nature and determinants of threat minimization.

摘要

大学生被随机分配到理想的或临界高胆固醇测试结果。临界高组的学生认为高胆固醇对健康的威胁较小,认为测试不太准确,并且认为高胆固醇比得到理想读数的学生更常见。高自尊或钝化应对方式预示着临界高读数后较低的痛苦,但并未调节认知评估。在研究2中,在社区筛查的参与者中再次观察到最小化现象,主要是在那些从未接受过测试的人中。尽管从未接受过测试的组更年轻且对胆固醇了解较少,但这些因素并不能解释最小化现象。结果支持了关于风险评估的实验室数据的普遍性,并为威胁最小化的性质和决定因素提供了新的证据。

相似文献

1
Psychological minimization of cholesterol test results: moderators of appraisal in college students and community residents.胆固醇检测结果的心理淡化:大学生和社区居民评估的调节因素
Health Psychol. 1993 Nov;12(6):503-7. doi: 10.1037//0278-6133.12.6.503.
2
Adolescent Perceptions of Cholesterol Screening Results: "Young Invincibles" or Developing Adults?青少年对胆固醇筛查结果的认知:“年轻无敌者”还是正在成长的成年人?
J Adolesc Health. 2016 Aug;59(2):162-70. doi: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.03.027. Epub 2016 May 5.
3
Is knowing your cholesterol number harmful?
J Clin Epidemiol. 1994 Feb;47(2):131-45. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(94)90018-3.
4
Biased appraisal of high blood pressure.高血压的偏差评估
Prev Med. 1990 Jan;19(1):40-4. doi: 10.1016/0091-7435(90)90005-5.
5
Population screening for plasma cholesterol: community-based results from Miami.
J Fla Med Assoc. 1989 Oct;76(10):853-60.
6
Community cholesterol screening. Impact of labeling on participant behavior.社区胆固醇筛查。标签对参与者行为的影响。
Arch Intern Med. 1990 Sep;150(9):1957-60. doi: 10.1001/archinte.150.9.1957.
7
What factors determine whether individuals found to have hypercholesterolaemia at mass screening accept advice to visit their physician.
Public Health. 1999 May;113(3):105-10. doi: 10.1038/sj.ph.1900548.
8
The effect of cholesterol screening on college students.胆固醇筛查对大学生的影响。
J Am Coll Health. 1992 Nov;41(3):106-10. doi: 10.1080/07448481.1992.9936309.
9
Hypercholesterolemia screening. Does knowledge of blood cholesterol level affect dietary fat intake?高胆固醇血症筛查。了解血液胆固醇水平会影响膳食脂肪摄入吗?
Can Fam Physician. 1998 Jun;44:1289-97.
10
[Psychological aspects of the measures for lowering the cholesterol level in a population study].[在一项人群研究中降低胆固醇水平措施的心理学方面]
Kardiologiia. 1985 Nov;25(11):72-5.

引用本文的文献

1
Understanding user responses to the COVID-19 pandemic on Twitter from a terror management theory perspective: Cultural differences among the US, UK and India.从恐惧管理理论视角理解推特用户对新冠疫情的反应:美国、英国和印度之间的文化差异
Comput Human Behav. 2022 Mar;128:107087. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2021.107087. Epub 2021 Nov 1.
2
Parental Defensiveness about Multifactorial Genomic and Environmental Causes of Children's Obesity Risk.父母对儿童肥胖风险的多因素遗传和环境原因的防御心理。
Child Obes. 2019 Jul;15(5):289-297. doi: 10.1089/chi.2018.0315. Epub 2019 Apr 4.
3
Using an Internet-Based Breast Cancer Risk Assessment Tool to Improve Social-Cognitive Precursors of Physical Activity.
使用基于互联网的乳腺癌风险评估工具改善身体活动的社会认知先兆因素。
Med Decis Making. 2017 Aug;37(6):657-669. doi: 10.1177/0272989X17699835. Epub 2017 Mar 31.
4
"I don't know" my cancer risk: exploring deficits in cancer knowledge and information-seeking skills to explain an often-overlooked participant response.“我不知道”我的癌症风险:探究癌症知识和信息寻求技能方面的不足,以解释一种常被忽视的参与者反应。
Med Decis Making. 2015 May;35(4):436-45. doi: 10.1177/0272989X15572827. Epub 2015 Mar 25.
5
Effects of genetic and environmental risk assessment feedback on colorectal cancer screening adherence.遗传和环境风险评估反馈对结直肠癌筛查依从性的影响。
J Behav Med. 2015 Oct;38(5):777-86. doi: 10.1007/s10865-015-9626-5. Epub 2015 Mar 18.
6
Reactions to threatening health messages.对威胁健康信息的反应。
BMC Public Health. 2012 Nov 21;12:1011. doi: 10.1186/1471-2458-12-1011.
7
Understanding how mothers of adolescent girls obtain information about the human papillomavirus vaccine: associations between mothers' health beliefs, information seeking, and vaccination intentions in an ethnically diverse sample.了解少女母亲如何获得人乳头瘤病毒疫苗信息:在一个种族多样化的样本中,母亲的健康信念、信息寻求和疫苗接种意愿之间的关联。
J Health Psychol. 2013 Jul;18(7):926-38. doi: 10.1177/1359105312445078. Epub 2012 Sep 19.
8
Self-affirmation moderates effects of unrealistic optimism and pessimism on reactions to tailored risk feedback.自我肯定调节不切实际的乐观和悲观对定制风险反馈反应的影响。
Psychol Health. 2010 Dec;25(10):1195-208. doi: 10.1080/08870440903261970.
9
What do people think about changes in health behaviors? Differential perceptions of consequences of increases and decreases in health behaviors.人们对健康行为的变化有何看法?对健康行为增加和减少后果的不同认知。
Psychol Health. 2008 Oct 1;23(7):867-885. doi: 10.1080/14768320701360500.
10
The effect of credibility-related design cues on responses to a web-based message about the breast cancer risks from alcohol: randomized controlled trial.与可信度相关的设计线索对关于饮酒导致乳腺癌风险的网络信息的反应的影响:随机对照试验。
J Med Internet Res. 2009 Aug 25;11(3):e37. doi: 10.2196/jmir.1097.