Objective: To examine whether pregnancy-specific coping predicts changes in emotional distress from mid- to late pregnancy. Background: There is a need to identify ways of coping that reduce or elevate emotional distress in pregnant women as such distress increases the risk of adverse birth outcomes. Methods: 132 women receiving prenatal care from a university hospital midwifery practice were recruited prior to 25 weeks gestation (M = 19.58, SD = 5.14). The state anxiety version of the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) and the Revised Prenatal Distress Questionnaire (NuPDQ) were administered in mid- (M = 25.7 weeks, SD = 4.55) and late (M = 33.4 weeks, SD = 4.18) pregnancy and the Revised Prenatal Coping Inventory (NuPCI) at the latter timepoint. Results: Factor analysis of the NuPCI identified five distinct, conceptually interpretable types of coping: Prayer/Spirituality, Receiving Social Support, Planning/Preparation, Positive Appraisal, and Avoidant Coping. Avoidant Coping was used least frequently and Positive Appraisal was used most. The STPI and NuPDQ were aggregated to create a measure of emotional distress. After controlling for mid-pregnancy distress, Avoidant Coping predicted greater emotional distress in late pregnancy (β = .18, R2 = .61, p < .01) and Positive Appraisal predicted lower late pregnancy distress (β = -.15, R2 = .60, p < .01). Conclusion: This is one of the first studies to demonstrate that specific ways of coping with stress during pregnancy predict changes in pregnant women's emotional distress. The NuPCI is a psychometrically sound self-report instrument to examine coping and its association with emotional distress.
Objective: To examine whether pregnancy-specific coping predicts changes in emotional distress from mid- to late pregnancy. Background: There is a need to identify ways of coping that reduce or elevate emotional distress in pregnant women as such distress increases the risk of adverse birth outcomes. Methods: 132 women receiving prenatal care from a university hospital midwifery practice were recruited prior to 25 weeks gestation (M = 19.58, SD = 5.14). The state anxiety version of the State-Trait Personality Inventory (STPI) and the Revised Prenatal Distress Questionnaire (NuPDQ) were administered in mid- (M = 25.7 weeks, SD = 4.55) and late (M = 33.4 weeks, SD = 4.18) pregnancy and the Revised Prenatal Coping Inventory (NuPCI) at the latter timepoint. Results: Factor analysis of the NuPCI identified five distinct, conceptually interpretable types of coping: Prayer/Spirituality, Receiving Social Support, Planning/Preparation, Positive Appraisal, and Avoidant Coping. Avoidant Coping was used least frequently and Positive Appraisal was used most. The STPI and NuPDQ were aggregated to create a measure of emotional distress. After controlling for mid-pregnancy distress, Avoidant Coping predicted greater emotional distress in late pregnancy (β = .18, R2 = .61, p < .01) and Positive Appraisal predicted lower late pregnancy distress (β = -.15, R2 = .60, p < .01). Conclusion: This is one of the first studies to demonstrate that specific ways of coping with stress during pregnancy predict changes in pregnant women's emotional distress. The NuPCI is a psychometrically sound self-report instrument to examine coping and its association with emotional distress.
Authors: Karen Yirmiya; Noa Yakirevich-Amir; Heidi Preis; Amit Lotan; Shir Atzil; Inbal Reuveni Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-04-18 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Denise M Werchan; Cassandra L Hendrix; Jennifer C Ablow; Ananda B Amstadter; Autumn C Austin; Vanessa Babineau; G Anne Bogat; Leigh-Anne Cioffredi; Elisabeth Conradt; Sheila E Crowell; Dani Dumitriu; William Fifer; Morgan R Firestein; Wei Gao; Ian H Gotlib; Alice M Graham; Kimberly D Gregory; Hanna C Gustafsson; Kathryn L Havens; Brittany R Howell; Kathryn L Humphreys; Lucy S King; Patricia A Kinser; Elizabeth E Krans; Carly Lenniger; Alytia A Levendosky; Joseph S Lonstein; Rachel Marcus; Catherine Monk; Sara Moyer; Maria Muzik; Amy K Nuttall; Alexandra S Potter; Amy Salisbury; Lauren C Shuffrey; Beth A Smith; Lynne Smith; Elinor L Sullivan; Judy Zhou; Moriah E Thomason; Natalie H Brito Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2022-01-24 Impact factor: 4.996
Authors: Sylvia E Badon; Lisa A Croen; Assiamira Ferrara; Jennifer L Ames; Monique M Hedderson; Kelly C Young-Wolff; Yeyi Zhu; Lyndsay A Avalos Journal: J Affect Disord Date: 2022-04-28 Impact factor: 6.533
Authors: Ching-Fang Lee; Fur-Hsing Wen; Yvonne Hsiung; Jian-Pei Huang; Chun-Wei Chang; Hung-Hui Chen Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 3.390