Type D personality is a risk factor for psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain among adolescents: a cross-sectional study of a large population-based cohort of Swedish adolescents

Abstract

BackgroundType D personality, or the “distressed personality”, is a psychosocial factor associated with negative health outcomes, although its impact in younger populations is unclear. The purpose of this study was to investigate the prevalence of Type D personality and the associations between Type D personality and psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain among adolescences.MethodsA population-based, self-reported cross-sectional study conducted in Västmanland, Sweden with a cohort of 5012 students in the age between 15–18 years old. The participants completed the anonymous questionnaire Survey of Adolescent Life in Västmanland 2008 during class hour. Psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain were measured through index measuring the presence of symptoms and how common they were. DS14 and its two component subscales of negative affectivity (NA) and social inhibition (SI) were measured as well.ResultsThere was a difference depending on sex, where 10.4% among boys and 14.6% among girls (p = < 0.001) were defined as Type D personality. Boys and girls with a Type D personality had an approximately 2-fold increased odds of musculoskeletal pain and a 5-fold increased odds of psychosomatic symptoms. The subscale NA explained most of the relationship between Type D personality and psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain. No interaction effect of NA and SI was found.ConclusionsThere was a strong association between Type D personality and both psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain where adolescent with a type D personality reported more symptoms. The present study contributes to the mapping of the influence of Type D on psychosomatic symptoms and musculoskeletal pain among adolescents.

Statistically modelling the relationships between Type D personality and social support, health behaviors and symptom severity in chronic illness groups

“…It also made sense that this negative lens would be more relevant to psychological symptoms, which are arguably less constrained by the external world than physical symptoms. These results are also consistent with previous research that found Type D to be associated with higher rates of musculoskeletal pain and psychological symptom reporting (Condén et al, 2013). It may be that as the rate of negative affectivity and social inhibition increases, so does the subjective experience of illness and illness-related symptoms.…”

“…In a sample of over 3000 cancer survivors, Mols et al (2012) found that Type D patients reported significantly higher levels of general somatic symptoms, sleep disturbance, pain, and fatigue. Similarly, in a recent population survey of more than 5000 Swedish adolescents, Type D was associated with higher levels of self-reported psychosomatic symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, and sleep disturbance (Condén, Leppert, Ekselius, & Åslund, 2013;Condén, Rosenblad, Ekselius, & Aslund, 2014). Other somatic research has found that negative affectivity and social inhibition are also each independently associated with increased somatization and unexplained symptoms (Watson & Pennebaker, 1989;Wongpakaran & Wongpakaran, 2014).…”

Type D personality in cardiovascular patients and general population: prevalence and retrospective perception of stability

“…These findings in general population coincide with the previous cross-sectional study in the United Kingdom (Williams et al, 2015). This personality type has been associated with a poorer physical health status (Versteeg et al, 2012), musculoskeletal pain and psychosomatic symptoms (Conden et al, 2013). It is counterfactual that people with Type D personality report worse lifestyle or health perceptions, but on the other hand the sample of people with cardiovascular diseases report similar Type D features to general population.…”

“…Whereas, the prevalence of Type D personality among non-clinical samples is various, but generally considered to be lower than in patients. In the general population the prevalence of this personality type ranges from 13% (Conden, Leppert, Ekselius, & Åslund, 2013) to 40% (Horwood, Chamravi, & Tooley, 2015). Type D personality is described as a negative factor due to associations with poorer physical and mental health (Mols & Denollet, 2010), higher incidence of adverse clinical outcomes (Pedersen & Denollet, 2006) and lower scores of health-related quality of life (Staniute et al, 2015).…”

Prevalence of Type D personality and factorial and temporal stability of the DS14 after myocardial infarction in a Swedish population

“…The Type D personality has also been negatively associated with mental and physical well‐being and health‐promoting behavior in non‐cardiovascular patients and in the general population (Gangwisch, Malaspina, Babiss et al ., ; Gilmour & Williams, ; Mols & Denollet, , ; Williams, O'Connor, Grubb & O'Carroll, ). Studies have shown that Type D personality is associated with psychosomatic symptoms, musculoskeletal pain, and sleep problems, even among adolescents (Conden, Ekselius & Aslund, ; Conden, Leppert, Ekselius & Aslund, ).…”