Cross-sectional study compares emotional expressivity and ambiguity tolerance in chronic kidney disease and healthy individuals, indicating need for psychological support.
Background: Emotional expressivity and tolerance of ambiguity are psychological factors linked to adjustment in chronic illness. Chronic kidney disease (CKD), characterized by long-term treatment and uncertainty, may significantly impact these variables. Identifying differences between patients and healthy individuals can inform targeted psychological support. Objective: This study compared emotional expressivity and tolerance of ambiguity between adults with CKD and healthy controls. Methods: In this cross-sectional study, 180 CKD patients were purposively recruited from renal care centers in Zanjan (spring-summer 2024). A matched group of 180 healthy individuals was selected via convenience sampling. Participants completed the Emotional Expressivity Questionnaire (EEQ) and the Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance Scale-II (MSTAT-II). Group comparisons were performed using independent samples t-tests, with Cohen’s d for effect sizes (α=0.05). Results: Emotional expressivity was significantly lower in the CKD group (M=48.5, SD=13.4) than in controls (M=52.4, SD=9.7), with a mean difference of -3.9 (95% CI: -6.4 to -1.4; p=0.002) and a moderate effect size (d=0.33). In contrast, no significant difference was found in tolerance of ambiguity between CKD patients (M=40.9, SD=9.86) and controls (M=39.43, SD=8.72), with a mean difference of 1.47 (95% CI: -0.36 to 3.30; p=0.56) and a small effect size (d=0.16). Conclusion: While ambiguity tolerance was similar between groups, CKD patients exhibited notably reduced emotional expressivity. This underscores the emotional burden of CKD and highlights the need for integrative care models that promote emotional awareness and expression as part of standard clinical management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Khanbabaei et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: