Introduction
Methods
Search strategy
Selection criteria
Quality assessment
Positive if with respect to: | |
---|---|
Type D assessment | |
1. | A validated Type D questionnaire is used (e.g. DS16, DS24 or DS14) |
2. | The correct method of calculating Type D is used (e.g. as described in the publications associated with the Type D questionnaires) |
Study population | |
3. | A description is included of at least two socio-demographic variables |
4. | Inclusion and/or exclusion criteria are described |
5. | Participation rates for patient groups are described and are more than 75% |
6. | Information is given about the degree of selection of sample (information is given about the ratio respondents versus non-respondents). |
Study design | |
7. | The study size is consisting of at least 50 participants (arbitrarily chosen) |
8. | The collection of data is prospectively gathered |
9. | The process of data collection is described (e.g. interview or self-report) |
Results | |
10. | The results are compared between two groups or more (e.g., Type D vs. non-Type D, groups with different gender or age etc.) |
11. | Statistical proof for the findings is reported |
Results
Methodological quality of the studies
Study | Country | Size sample | Participants | Mean age in years | Sex | % Type D | Design | Research group | Study quality | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
[8] | U.K. | 564 | British males | M = 26.2 R = 18-55 | 564 men | 29% | Cross-sectional | Other | 8 | |
[9] | Belgium | 155 | policemen and nurses | M = 32 R = 20 - 56 | 66 men 85 women | 35.5% | Cross-sectional | Co RPS | 7 | |
[10] | Netherlands | 17 | right-handed men | M = 23 SD = 2.4 | 17 men no women | 23.5% | Cross-sectional | Co RPS | 6 | |
[11] | Canada | 173 | university students | M = 20.4 | 86 men 87 women | Unknown | Prospective | Other | 9 | |
[12] | Germany | 492 | employees at manufactory | M = 40.5 SD = 11.4 | 438 men 54 women | Unknown | Cross-sectional | Other | 9 | |
[13] | Netherlands | 668 | children | M = 10.3 R = 8.6 - 12.8 | 368 boys 300 girls | 27.5% | Prospective | Other | 7 | |
[14] | Netherlands | 151 | prison workers | M = 44.0 R = 22 - 59 | 111 men 40 women | 16.6% | Cross-sectional | Other | 8 | |
[15] | Netherlands | 3331 | healthy twins | M = 17.2 R = 12 - 24 | 1519 men 1812 women | 26.7% | Cross-sectional | Co RPS | 8 | |
[16] | Netherlands | 755 | student teachers | M = 18.8 R = 16-29 | No men 755 women | 25.9% | Cross-sectional | Other | 9 | |
[17] | Poland | 79 | psychiatrists and nurses | M = 39.7 S = 8.2 | 25 men 28 women | 27.8% | Cross-sectional | Other | 6 | |
[18] | Ukraine | 250 | university students | M = 20.9 SD = 3.4 | 113 men 137 women | 22.4% | Prospective | Co RPS | 9 | |
[19] | U.K. | 334 | university students | M = 19.5 R = 18-41 | 180 men 154 women | 24.9% | Cross-sectional | Other | 7 | |
[20] | Germany | 634 | employees at manufactory | M = 39.9 SD = 10.7 | 575 men 67 women | Unknown | Cross-sectional | Other | 7 | |
[21] | Netherlands | 5404 | adults | M = 45.8 SD = 15.9 | 2697 men 2707 women | Unknown | Prospective | Co RPS | 9 | |
[22] | Belgium/Netherlands | 932 | female teachers | M = 25 IQR = 19-42 | no men 932 women | 28.4% | Cross-sectional | Other | 8 | |
[23] | Netherlands | 622 | adults | M = 54.2 SD = 14 | 318 men 304 women | 18.1% | Cross-sectional | Co RPS | 8 | |
[24] | Belgium | 132 | adults | M = 33.7 SD = 14.5 | 70 men 57 women | Unknown | Cross-sectional | Other | 9 | |
[25] | U.K. | 84 | adults | M = 22.0 SD = 6.8 | 42 men 42 women | Unknown | Prospective | Other | 9 | |
[26] | U.K./Ireland | 1012 | adults | M = 20.5 SD = 4.8 | 225 men 787 women | 38.5% | Cross-sectional | Other | 8 |
Study characteristics
Outcome | Study | Participants | Conclusion | |
---|---|---|---|---|
(3a)
|
Mental health status
| [23] | 622 adults (Netherlands) | Type D individuals experienced more symptoms of depression (r = 0.42; p < 0.01) and anxiety (r = 0.35; P < 0.01) compared to non-Type D individuals. |
[9] | 155 policemen and nurses (Belgium) | Type D individuals experienced more symptoms of depression (9.1 vs. 7.7; p < 0.01) and anxiety (14.1 vs. 11.1; p < 0.001) compared to non-Type D individuals. | ||
[18] | 250 university students (Ukraine) | Type D individuals experienced more symptoms of depression (p < 0.001), anxiety (p < 0.001), and negative affect (p < 0.001), as well as less positive affect (p < 0.001) than non-Type Ds. | ||
[13] | 668 children (Netherlands) | Children with a Type D personality reported more negative mood states (10.43 vs. 6.96) and more non-productive thoughts (10.15 vs. 5.13) than non-Type D children. | ||
[17] | 79 psychiatrists and nurses (Poland) | Individuals with a Type D personality manifested significantly more symptoms of mental health disorders than non-Type D individuals. | ||
[24] | 132 adults (Belgium) | Type D individuals had more symptoms of mental distress (r s > .38) compared to non-Type D; Type D has a more adverse effect with low levels of authoritarianism (β = .62; p < 0.01). | ||
[19] | 334 university students (U.K.) | Type D's tend to use more passive and maladaptive avoidance coping strategies such as resignation and withdrawal. This is associated with higher levels of perceived stress and burnout symptoms. | ||
[25] | 84 adults (U.K.) | In an experimental research setting, Type D individuals exhibited higher feelings of subjective stress compared to non-Type D individuals (F(1.83) = 6.43; p < 0.03). | ||
[26] | 1012 adults (U.K. and Ireland) | Type D individuals reported lower levels of social support (12.7 vs. 14.7; p < 0.001), and they were more likely to let things get them down (p < 0.001) compared to non-Type Ds. | ||
(3b)
|
Physical health status
| [13] | 668 children (Netherlands) | Children with a Type D personality reported more somatic complaints (24 vs. 18; p < 0.05) compare to non-Type D children. |
[23] | 622 adults (Netherlands) | Individuals with a Type D personality reported a significantly lower health status (all p s < 0.01) compared to non-Type D individuals. | ||
[9] | 155 policemen and nurses (Belgium) | Individuals with a Type D personality reported a significantly lower health status (50.4 vs. 42.5; p < 0.001) compared to non-Type D individuals. | ||
[21] | 5404 adults (Netherlands) | Negative affectivity was related to more influenza-like illness reporting (OR = 1.05, p = 0.009); however, social inhibition to less influenza-like illness reporting (OR = 0.97; p = 0.011). | ||
[22] | 932 female teachers (Belgium and Netherlands) | Female teachers with a Type D personality were more bothered by their voice complaints (10 vs. 7; p < 0.001) than their non-Type D counterparts. | ||
[16] | 755 student teachers (Belgium and Netherlands) | Type D student teachers had a 4× greater risk of a high Voice Handicap Inventory score (rating the subjective biopsychosocial consequences caused by voice problems) than the non-Type D group. |
Outcome | Study | Participants | Conclusion | |
---|---|---|---|---|
(4a)
|
Medical: mechanisms of disease
| [22] | 932 female teachers (Belgium and Netherlands) | Female teachers with a Type D personality were significantly less likely to get treatment for their voice complaints than their non-Type D counterparts (25.7% vs. 39.3%; p = 0.016). |
[26] | 1012 adults (U.K. and Ireland) | Type D individuals had fewer regular medical checkups (p = 0.027), and were less likely to eat sensibly (p = 0.033) or to spend time outdoors (p < 0.001) compared to non-Type Ds. | ||
[8] | 564 males (U.K.) |
Body dissatisfaction is more prevalent in Type D's or in men who are sedentary. The interaction between Type D and being sedentary is detrimental because it can influence health risk behaviors | ||
[25] | 84 adults (U.K.) | |||
[11] | 173 university students (Canada) | Socially inhibited men had heightened systolic and diastolic blood pressure reactivity (p < 0.05); negative affectivity was related to dampened heart rate reactivity in men (p < 0.05). | ||
[10] | 17 men (Netherlands) | The difference in amygdala activity in reaction to fearful vs. neutral face/body expressions was present in non-Type Ds (p = 0.004) but was absent in Type D individuals (p = 0.110). | ||
[15] | 3331 healthy twins (Netherlands) | Type D personality was substantially heritable (52%); heritability for negative affectivity was 46%, while heritability for social inhibition was 50%. | ||
(4b)
|
Occupational: work-related problems
| [12] | 492 employees at manufactory (Germany) | Employees with a Type D personality were more often absent from work than their non-Type D counterparts (β = 0.499; p < 0.01). |
[20] | 634 employees at manufactory (Germany) | Employees with a Type D personality were more likely to report symptoms of vital exhaustion than non-Type Ds (r = 0.574; p < 0.001) | ||
[17] | 79 psychiatrists and nurses (Poland) | Individuals with a Type D personality perceived their workplace as more stressful and had a higher level of burnout than non-Type D individuals. | ||
[14] | 151 prison workers (Netherlands) | Type Ds were more at risk for post-traumatic stress disorder than non-Type Ds (OR 9.09; 95%CI = 2.1-39.1; p < 0.005); this risk increased when exposed to inmate aggression. |