Latent Profile Analyses of Generalized Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Primary Care Patients
Rattachement africain : es, gb. Niveau de preuve : code pays fourni par la source.
Le résumé fourni par la source
Background: Despite their frequent comorbidity of depression and anxiety, previous studies have focused on their co-occurrence without considering symptomatic heterogeneity across patients. We aimed to identify distinct profiles of anxious-depressive symptoms and associated characteristics. Method: Participants were 1,061 patients from the PsicAP clinical trial. Latent Profile Analysis was used to identify distinct subgroups of patients, and multinomial logistic regression models examined associations person-related characteristics. Results: Five distinct symptomatic profiles were identified: 1) mild symptoms (23.66%); 2) moderate depression and mild anxiety symptoms (16.78%); 3) moderate depression and anxiety symptoms (25.64%); 4) moderate-severe symptoms without suicidal thoughts (24.59%); and 5) moderate-severe symptoms with suicidal thoughts (9.33%). Regression analyses showed that higher scores in somatization, disability, emotional suppression, rumination, and metacognitive beliefs, as well as lower quality of life and social support, were significantly associated with more severe profiles. Conclusions: Considering symptomatic heterogeneity in primary care is important for personalizing treatments based on individual profiles. This approach may optimize healthcare resources by offering tailored care.
Ce résumé expose les affirmations des auteurs. BNTIC ne l’interprète pas comme une validation indépendante des résultats.
Le contrôle bibliographique ouvert
DOI retrouvé dans Crossref DOI retrouvé ; titre concordant.
- Titre Crossref
- Latent Profile Analyses of Generalized Anxiety and Depressive Symptoms in Primary Care Patients
- Date Crossref
- 01/01/2026
- Éditeur
- Colegio Oficial de la Psicologia de Madrid
- Type
- journal-article
Ce recoupement confirme des métadonnées liées au DOI. Il ne confirme ni la méthode ni les conclusions de l’étude, et il ne compte pas comme une seconde source scientifique indépendante.
Les institutions déclarées
Une affiliation ne permet pas de déduire la nationalité d’un auteur.