| Literature DB >> 24386345 |
Lili He1, Jiuping Xu1, Zhibin Wu1.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: By testing the mediating effect of coping strategies on the relationship between social support (SS) and posttraumatic growth (PTG), the aim of this research was to develop a new approach for the study of post-disaster psychological intervention.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2013 PMID: 24386345 PMCID: PMC3873973 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0084164
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
The characteristics of the study sample.
| N | % | N | % | ||
| Gender | Education level | ||||
| Male | 1227 | 59 | High school or below | 1095 | 52.6 |
| Female | 853 | 41 | College graduate | 938 | 45.1 |
| Age groups | Post-graduate | 47 | 2.3 | ||
| 18–24 | 74 | 3.6 | Income (RMB/month) | ||
| 25–34 | 584 | 28.1 | <1000 | 385 | 18.5 |
| 35–44 | 852 | 41 | 1000–2000 | 1360 | 65.4 |
| 45–54 | 491 | 23.6 | >2000 | 335 | 16.1 |
| 55–68 | 79 | 3.8 | |||
| Ethnicity group | |||||
| Han | 1674 | 80.5 | |||
| Tibetan | 147 | 7.1 | |||
| Qiang | 211 | 10.1 | |||
| Hui | 37 | 1.8 | |||
| Other | 11 | 0.5 |
Figure 1A: Illustration of a direct effect.
X affects Y. B: Illustration of a mediation design. X affects Y indirectly through M.
Scores of PTG-Total by background characteristics.
| Mean (SD) | p value | Mean (SD) | p value | ||
| Gender | 0.01 | Education level | 0.07 | ||
| Male | 57.85 (7.27) | High school or below | 58.16 (7.25) | ||
| Female | 58.84 (7.50) | College graduate | 58.49 (7.54) | ||
| Age | 0.003 | Post-graduate | 58.54 (6.43) | ||
| 18–24 | 57.92(6.24) | Income (RMB/month) | 0.016 | ||
| 25–34 | 58.18 (7.86) | <1000 | 58.52 (7.41) | ||
| 35–44 | 58.84 (7.27) | 1000–2000 | 58.42 (7.62) | ||
| 45–54 | 57.56 (7.06) | >2000 | 57.11 (6.06) | ||
| 55–65 | 56.72 (7.14) | ||||
| Ethnicity group | 0.34 | ||||
| Han | 58.14 (7.41) | ||||
| Tibetan | 58.69 (7.04) | ||||
| Qiang | 58.95 (7.51) | ||||
| Hui | 57.86 (5.59) | ||||
| Other | 56.82 (7.84) |
Note. PTG = posttraumatic growth.
Correlation coefficients among the study variables.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | |
|
| 1 | |||||||||
|
| .17 | 1 | ||||||||
|
| .21 | .51 | 1 | |||||||
|
| .30 | .24 | .55 | 1 | ||||||
|
| .58 | .17 | .13 | .03 | 1 | |||||
|
| −.39 | .18 | .14 | .03 | .40 | 1 | ||||
|
| .29 | .16 | .16 | .04 | .23 | −.24 | 1 | |||
|
| .22 | .22 | .18 | .08 | .28 | −.33 | .25 | 1 | ||
|
| −.15 | .18 | .09 | .05 | .22 | −.26 | .26 | .29 | 1 | |
|
| .52 | .18 | .18 | .04 | .32 | −.32 | .56 | .37 | −.24 | 1 |
Note. PTG = post-traumatic growth; SS = subjective support; OS = objective support, SA = support availability; PA = problem avoidance; HF = having fantasies; SB = self-blame; AH = asking for help; RA = rationalization; PS = problem solving;
P<0.05;
P<0.01.
The results of hierarchical regression analysis.
| F | R2 | SE | coefficient | BCa 95% CI | ||
| Lower | Upper | |||||
| Step1 | ||||||
| Social support | 38.422 | 0.18 | 0.030 | 0.135 | 0.100 | 0.220 |
| Step2 | 42.627 | 0.39 | ||||
| Social support | 0.030 | 0.107 | 0.062 | 0.191 | ||
| Coping strategies | 0.087 | 0.148 | −0.735 | −0.372 | ||
Note. post-traumatic growth (PTG); social support; coping strategies;
P<0.05;
P<0.01;
P<0.001.
Figure 2Results of the proposed mediation model.
Predictor: social support, Mediator: coping strategies, Outcome variable: post-traumatic growth (PTG). Coefficients are unstandardized parameter estimates.