| Literature DB >> 29200801 |
Andreea Mihaela Mihalca1, Loredana Ruxandra Diaconu-Gherasim2, Lacramioara Ionela Butnariu3.
Abstract
The present study aimed to explore the cultural differences in social functioning and coping strategies in chronically ill adolescents. One hundred sixty-eight chronically ill adolescents (45.8 % girls), age 11 to 17 years from Romania (N = 78) and Republic of Moldova (N = 90) were recruited. Participants filled in self-assessment measures for social functioning problems and coping strategies. Results indicated cross-cultural differences in the studied factors: Moldavian adolescents reported more social functioning problems and higher use of maladaptive coping strategies, while using less adaptive strategies than Romanian counterparts. The associations between social functioning and maladaptive coping strategies were stronger for Romanian than Moldavian adolescents. Further, various coping strategies acted as important predictors for social functioning in the two country samples. Findings suggest that, while the direction of the relation between coping and social functioning in chronically ill adolescents is cultural invariant, the importance played by specific coping strategies in determining social functioning varies by cultural context. Therefore, clinical interventions aimed at improving the social functioning of chronically ill adolescents should take into account the reality of their cultural setting.Entities:
Keywords: Adolescence; Chronic disease; Coping strategies; Cross-cultural comparison; Social functioning
Year: 2016 PMID: 29200801 PMCID: PMC5696497 DOI: 10.1007/s12144-016-9468-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Psychol ISSN: 1046-1310
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the analysed variables for the entire sample
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-blame | _ | ||||||
| 2. Rumination | .54*** | _ | |||||
| 3. Catastrophizing | .58** | .70*** | _ | ||||
| 4. Other-blame | .48** | .42*** | . 42*** | _ | |||
| 5. Planning | .19* | .41*** | .23*** | .14 | _ | ||
| 6. Positive refocusing | −.15* | .14 | .00 | −.07 | .40*** | _ | |
| 7. LCI-y | .28*** | .30*** | −.37*** | .39*** | −.11 | −.16* | _ |
| Mean | 9.08 | 11.50 | 10.64 | 8.06 | 13.49 | 13.58 | 10.79 |
| SD | 4.06 | 3.97 | 3.82 | 3.62 | 3.49 | 3.34 | 5.23 |
N = 168; LCI-y - Living with Chronic Illness Scale – youth form
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001
Descriptive statistics and correlations between the analysed variables for each cultural group
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Self-blame | _ | .20† | .43*** | .52*** | .12 | .01 | .10 | 10.82 | 3.55 |
| 2. Rumination | .63*** | _ | .58*** | .30*** | .37*** | .44*** | .02 | 12.82 | 2.73 |
| 3. Catastrophizing | .53*** | .70*** | _ | 50*** | 31*** | .36*** | .07 | 12.07 | 3.01 |
| 4. Other-blame | .14 | .32** | .11 | _ | .21* | .00 | .18† | 9.64 | 3.20 |
| 5. Planning | .29** | .47*** | .22† | .11 | _ | .49*** | −.24* | 13.50 | 2.96 |
| 6. Positive refocusing | −.16 | . 09 | −.13 | .02 | .35** | _ | −.04 | 13.03 | 3.08 |
| 7. LCI-y | .23* | .34** | .45*** | .41*** | −.02 | −.19 | _ | 12.37 | 4.87 |
| Mean | 7.06 | 9.97 | 8.99 | 6.23 | 13.49 | 14.21 | 8.97 | ||
| SD | 3.68 | 4.60 | 4.01 | 3.22 | 4.03 | 3.54 | 5.05 |
LCI-y - Living with Chronic Illness Scale – youth form; Lower left - zero-order associations for Romanian sample (N = 78); Upper right - zero-order associations for Moldavian sample (N = 80)
†p < .10; *p < .05; **p < .001; ***p < .001
Hierarchical multiple regression analyses to predict adolescents’ social functioning problems
|
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| .23*** | |||
| Self-blame | −.12 | .47 | −.02 | |
| Rumination | .78 | .55 | .15 | |
| Catastrophizing | 1.10 | .53 | .21* | |
| Other-blame | 1.45 | .42 | .28** | |
| Planning | −1.16 | .42 | −.22** | |
| Positive Refocusing | −.42 | .40 | −.08 | |
|
| .004 | |||
| Cultural group | −.82 | .87 | −.08 | |
|
| .06* | |||
| Cultural Group x Self-blame | −.35 | 1.01 | −.04 | |
| Cultural Group x Rumination | −.14 | 1.22 | −.02 | |
| Cultural Group x Catastrophizing | 2.20 | 1.13 | . 31† | |
| Cultural Group x Other-blame | .76 | .93 | .10 | |
| Cultural Group x Planning | 1.66 | .86 | . 25† | |
| Cultural Group x Positive Refocusing | −1.27 | .86 | −.18 |
N = 168; *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001, †p < .10
Fig. 1The moderating role of culture in the relation between planning and social functioning
Fig. 2The moderating role of culture in the relation between catastrophizing and social functioning