What question did this study set out to answer?

This study examines the impact of childhood trauma and psychosocial resources on quality of life in functional dyspepsia patients, focusing on differences between subtypes.

April 8, 2026Open Access

Subtype Comparison of Psychosocial Associations With Quality of Life in Functional Dyspepsia

SLS.H. LeeWonkwang University SJSeung‐Ho JangInje University SYSung Hoon YoonWonkwang University

Key Points

This study examines the impact of childhood trauma and psychosocial resources on quality of life in functional dyspepsia patients, focusing on differences between subtypes.
Conducted a cross-sectional analysis with 152 functional dyspepsia patients and 79 healthy controls.
Utilized multiple validated assessments including K-BDI-II for depression and MSPSS for social support.
Performed analysis of variance for group differences and hierarchical regression for QoL predictors in patients.
Patients with functional dyspepsia reported higher emotional distress and lower quality of life compared to controls.
Negative affect was associated with lower quality of life across both subtypes (EPS and PDS).
Social support was identified as the main protective factor for quality of life in the EPS group, while resilience was crucial in the PDS group.

Abstract

Objective This study aimed to examine the associations of childhood trauma, psychosocial resources (social support and resilience), and emotional distress with quality of life (QoL) in patients with functional dyspepsia (FD), and to explore potential differences between the epigastric pain syndrome (EPS) and postprandial distress syndrome (PDS) subtypes.Methods This cross-sectional study included 152 FD patients and 79 healthy controls who completed the Korean versions of the following instruments: Beck Depression Inventory-II (K-BDI-II), Beck Anxiety Inventory (K-BAI), Childhood Trauma Questionnaire (KCTQ), Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC-K), and World Health Organization Quality of Life Assessment Instrument Brief Form (WHOQOL-BREF). Negative affect was computed as a principal component analysis-derived composite from K-BDI-II emotional/cognitive items and K-BAI; QoL was a composite of WHOQOLBREF domains. Group differences were assessed using analysis of variance, and hierarchical regression analysis identified predictors of QoL within the patient group. Finally, multivariate regression models compared subtype-specific psychosocial associations.Results Compared to controls, patients with FD reported higher emotional distress and childhood trauma, lower psychosocial resources and QoL. Negative affect was consistently associated with lower QoL in both subtypes (EPS: β=-0.360; PDS: β=-0.300). Although direct statistical comparison of pathways between subtypes showed no significant differences, the most prominent protective factor within each group appeared to differ: in the EPS group, higher social support was the most significant predictor of better QoL (β=0.381, p=0.001), whereas in the PDS group, resilience was the key protective factor (β=0.360, p=0.001).Conclusion Reducing emotional distress remains a central target for improving QoL in FD. Subtype-tailored emphases may be helpful— enhancing social support in EPS and bolstering resilience in PDS—while noting that between-subtype differences were limited and require confirmation in larger samples.

اسأل الذكاء الاصطناعي

Bookmark

View Full Paper