| Literature DB >> 27562194 |
Karla Gambetta-Tessini1, Rodrigo Mariño2, Mike Morgan2, Vivienne Anderson3.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Attention to the role of context in shaping individuals' coping strategies is necessary. This study used the Salutogenic Model (SM) as a framework to identify the coping strategies of oral health profession students from three countries.Entities:
Keywords: Australia; Chile; Coping skills; Dental; New Zealand
Mesh:
Year: 2016 PMID: 27562194 PMCID: PMC5000445 DOI: 10.1186/s12909-016-0740-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: BMC Med Educ ISSN: 1472-6920 Impact factor: 2.463
Summary of mean (s.d) for SOC, perceived stress, coping dimensions by socio-demographic characteristics
| SOC | Perceived stress | Adaptive coping dimensions | Maladaptive coping dimensions | Type of coping strategy | |||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active coping | Emotional support | Instrumental support | Positive reframing | Planning | Humour | Acceptance | Religion | Self-distraction | Denial | Substance use | Behavioural disengagement | Venting | Self-blame | Adaptive | Maladaptive | ||||
|
| 56.4 (10.9) | 19.1 (7.0) | 5.9 (1.5) | 5.5 (1.8) | 5.4 (1.9) | 5.5 (1.6) | 5.8 (1.5) | 4.5 (1.8) | 5.7 (1.4) | 4.3 (2.1) | 5.6 (1.5) | 2.9 (1.4) | 2.8 (1.4) | 3.2 (1.4) | 4.7 (1.7) | 4.9 (1.7) | 42.7 (8.7) | 24.1 (5.5) | |
|
| Female 531 | 56.1 (11.1) | 19.9 (6.9)** | 6.0 (1.4) | 5.9 (1.7)** | 5.7 (1.8)** | 5.6 (1.6)* | 5.9 (1.6) | 4.3 (1.8)* | 5.7 (1.4) | 4.5 (2.2)** | 5.6 (1.5) | 3.0 (1.4) | 2.6 (1.3)** | 3.2 (1.4) | 4.8 (1.6)* | 5.0 (1.7) | 43.7 (8.5)** | 24.2 (5.2) |
| Male | 56.8 (10.7) | 17.9 (6.9)** | 5.9 (1.4) | 5.0 (1.8)** | 4.9 (1.9)** | 5.3 (1.6)* | 5.7 (1.5) | 4.7 (1.8)* | 5.6 (1.5) | 4.0 (2.0)** | 5.5 (1.5) | 2.9 (1.3) | 3.1 (1.6)** | 3.2 (1.4) | 4.5 (1.7)* | 4.9 (1.7) | 41.1 (8.8)** | 23.9 (5.8) | |
|
| Australia/New Zealand | 58.0 (11.3)* | 17.7 (6.8)** | 5.5 (1.4)** | 4.7 (1.7)** | 4.6 (1.7)** | 5.1 (1.6)** | 5.3 (1.5)** | 4.0 (1.8)** | 5.5 (1.5)* | 3.5 (1.8)** | 5.1 (1.6)** | 2.5 (1.0)** | 2.6 (1.3)* | 2.8 (1.1)** | 3.9 (1.5)** | 4.3 (1.6)** | 38. 1 (8.1)** | 21.0 (5.0)** |
| Chile | 55.6 (10.7)* | 19.8 (7.0)** | 6.2 (1.3)** | 5.9 (1.8)** | 5.8 (1.8)** | 5.7 (1.6)** | 6.0 (1.5)** | 4.7 (1.8)** | 5.8 (1.4)* | 4.7 (2.1)** | 5.8 (1.4)** | 3.2 (1.5)** | 2.9 (1.5)* | 3.4 (1.4)** | 4.9 (1.7)** | 5.3 (1.7)** | 44.8 (8.1)** | 25.4 (5.2)** | |
|
| Public | 56.9 (11.0) | 18.5 (7.1) | 5.8 (1.4)* | 5.1 (1.8)** | 4.9 (1.9)** | 5.3 (1.6) | 5.6 (1.6)* | 4.3 (1.9)* | 5.5 (1.5)* | 3.8 (2.0)** | 5.4 (1.6) | 2.9 (1.3) | 2.6 (1.3)* | 3.0 (1.2)* | 4.4 (1.6)* | 4.8 (1.7)* | 40.2 (9.5)** | 23.1 (5.6)** |
| Private | 56.0 (10.9) | 19.4 (6.9) | 6.1 (1.4)* | 5.7 (1.8)** | 5.6 (1.8)** |
| 5.9 (1.5)* | 4.6 (1.8)* | 5.8 (1.4)* | 4.6 (2.1)** | 5.6 (1.4) | 3.0 (1.4) | 2.9 (1.5)* | 3.3 (1.4)* | 4.8 (1.7)* | 5.1 (1.5)* | 43.8 (8.3)** | 24.6 (5.5)** | |
SOC Sense of Coherence, *Significant values p < 0.05, ** Significant values p <0.001. Results may not add due to missing values
Correlation matrix between sense of coherence, perceived stress and coping dimensions
| SOC | Adaptive coping dimensions | Maladaptive coping dimensions | Type of coping strategy | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Active coping | Emotional support | Instrumental support | Positive reframing | Planning | Humour | Acceptance | Religion | Self-distraction | Denial | Substance use | Behavioural disengagement | Venting | Self-blame | Adaptive | Maladaptive | ||
|
| 1 | 0.14 ** | −0.06 | −0.08* | 0.13** | 0.07 | 0.03 | 0.01 | −0.02 | −0.12** | −0.24** | −0.22** | −0.26** | −0.24** | −0.38** | 0.03 | −0.42** |
| Perceived stress | −0.61** | −0.1** | 0.15** | 0.15** | −0.13** | 0.004 | −0.03 | −0.03 | 0.11** | 1.32** | 0.25** | 0.11** | 0.28** | 0.25** | 0.42** | 0.04 | 0.40** |
SOC, sense of coherence. *Significant values p < 0.05, ** Significant values p < 0.01
Fig. 1Profile analysis for means of coping dimensions by country and sex interactions