Key result
Psychological treatments show uncertain benefit for reducing cardiovascular risk tied to mental disorders.
Why the study?
It remains uncertain which negative affective traits and mental disorders confer cardiovascular risk independently, and the implications of their overlap and interactions are poorly understood.
This review highlights the role of affective traits and mental disorders as cardiovascular risk factors and discusses potential psychobiological mechanisms and interventions.
Personality traits involving negative affect, as well as mental disorders including depression, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder, are cardiovascular risk factors. However, which of these confer risk independently is uncertain, and the implications of their overlap, combinations, and interactions are poorly understood. Potential explanatory mechanisms are being characterized with increasing detail and sophistication. Of particular interest are psychobiological processes initiated by stress. Other mechanisms involve stress-related health behaviors, and illness behaviors that delay or reduce the effectiveness of medical treatment. With some promising exceptions, findings of intervention trials are uncertain regarding the effectiveness of psychological treatments for modifying affective traits and mental disorders to reduce their impact on cardiovascular disease. Recent developments include novel conceptualizations of mental disorders; examination of the interplay between cognitive factors and emotion; and theoretical frameworks that integrate psychological stress processes with neuroscience, health behavior, and social cognition. Also promising is increased attention to the roles of gender identity and minority group membership.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Richard J. Contrada (2025) conducted a review in Cardiovascular Disease and Mental Disorders. Affective traits and mental disorders are recognized cardiovascular risk factors, but the effectiveness of psychological treatments for modifying these to reduce cardiovascular impact remains uncertain.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: