Mindfulness‐based cognitive therapy for severe health anxiety (hypochondriasis): An interpretative phenomenological analysis of patients’ experiences
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE. Severe health anxiety (hypochondriasis) is a common and disabling condition for which existing psychological treatments have limited effects (Thomson & Page, 2007). Hence, it is a priority to examine both the efficacy and acceptability of new psychological treatments for health anxiety. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of participants with severe health anxiety who received Mindfulness-based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) as part of a randomized controlled trial. DESIGN. Semi-structured interviews were carried out 3 months after participants completed MBCT in order to explore their experiences of the course and subsequent self-managed practice. METHODS. Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (Smith, 1996) was used to analyze interview transcripts from nine participants who had received MBCT. RESULTS. Two main themes emerged from the analysis: (1) My awareness of barriers to experiencing change through MBCT, and (2) Cultivation of a new approach to health anxiety and my life in general. CONCLUSIONS. The majority of participants considered MBCT to be an acceptable and beneficial treatment for health anxiety. Participants reported beneficial impacts of MBCT both on their health anxiety and on their broader functioning. Importantly, the focusing of attention upon bodily sensations required in MBCT practice did not exacerbate participants' health anxiety.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".