T Chen1, D P Laplante2, G Elgbeili2, A Brunet3, G Simcock4, S Kildea5, S King6. 1. Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada. 2. Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada. 3. Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. 4. Mater Research, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia; School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia. 5. Mater Research, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia. 6. Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Electronic address: Suzanne.king@mcgill.ca.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: This study investigated how coping strategies moderated the impact of disaster-related objective hardship on subjective distress in pregnant women. METHODS: The objective hardship (exposure severity), subjective distress (Peritraumatic Distress Inventory, Peritraumatic Dissociative Experiences Questionnaire and Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and coping styles (Brief COPE) of pregnant women (N = 226) exposed to the 2011 Queensland, Australia flood were assessed. Moderation analyses were used to assess how coping strategies moderated the relationship between objective hardship and subjective distress levels. RESULTS: We found that the more severe the objective flood exposure, the greater the women's subjective distress. The moderation analyses were significant for the Brief COPE's three coping styles (i.e., problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and dysfunctional coping). For women experiencing high levels of objective hardship, problem-focused (∆R2 = 1.7%) and dysfunctional coping (∆R2 = 1.5%) elevated subjective distress levels. For women experiencing low or moderate levels of objective hardship, emotion-focused coping reduced levels of subjective distress (∆R2 = 1.3%). A three-way interaction between objective hardship, emotion-focused coping, and dysfunctional coping approached significance (∆R2 = 1.0%), indicating a protective role of emotion-focused coping under high levels of objective hardship, for women who frequently use maladaptive coping strategies. LIMITATIONS: Sample was generally high SES and no measure of social support was available. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that both problem-focused and dysfunctional coping strategies were maladaptive for women with relatively high exposure levels. Overall, emotion-focused coping strategies were more likely than problem-focused or dysfunctional strategies to reduce pregnant women's subjective distress following the flood.
INTRODUCTION: This study investigated how coping strategies moderated the impact of disaster-related objective hardship on subjective distress in pregnant women. METHODS: The objective hardship (exposure severity), subjective distress (Peritraumatic Distress Inventory, Peritraumatic Dissociative Experiences Questionnaire and Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and coping styles (Brief COPE) of pregnant women (N = 226) exposed to the 2011 Queensland, Australia flood were assessed. Moderation analyses were used to assess how coping strategies moderated the relationship between objective hardship and subjective distress levels. RESULTS: We found that the more severe the objective flood exposure, the greater the women's subjective distress. The moderation analyses were significant for the Brief COPE's three coping styles (i.e., problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and dysfunctional coping). For women experiencing high levels of objective hardship, problem-focused (∆R2 = 1.7%) and dysfunctional coping (∆R2 = 1.5%) elevated subjective distress levels. For women experiencing low or moderate levels of objective hardship, emotion-focused coping reduced levels of subjective distress (∆R2 = 1.3%). A three-way interaction between objective hardship, emotion-focused coping, and dysfunctional coping approached significance (∆R2 = 1.0%), indicating a protective role of emotion-focused coping under high levels of objective hardship, for women who frequently use maladaptive coping strategies. LIMITATIONS: Sample was generally high SES and no measure of social support was available. CONCLUSION: Results suggest that both problem-focused and dysfunctional coping strategies were maladaptive for women with relatively high exposure levels. Overall, emotion-focused coping strategies were more likely than problem-focused or dysfunctional strategies to reduce pregnant women's subjective distress following the flood.
Authors: Ashley Pike; Cynthia Mikolas; Kathleen Tompkins; Joanne Olson; David M Olson; Suzette Brémault-Phillips Journal: Front Public Health Date: 2022-05-13
Authors: Jennifer E Khoury; Leslie Atkinson; Teresa Bennett; Susan M Jack; Andrea Gonzalez Journal: Arch Womens Ment Health Date: 2021-06-19 Impact factor: 4.405