Protective Factors for Mental Disorders and Psychological Distress in Female, Compared with Male, Service Members in a Representative Sample
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: Although military interest in promoting psychological resilience is growing, resources protective against psychopathology have been understudied in female service members. Using a representative sample of Canadian Forces personnel, we investigated whether religious attendance, spirituality, coping, and social support were related to mental disorders and psychological distress in female service members, and whether sex differences occurred in these associations. METHOD: Religious attendance and spirituality were self-reported. Coping items were taken from 3 scales and produced 3 factors (active, avoidance, and self-medication). Social support was assessed with the Medical Outcomes Study Social Support Survey. Past-year mental disorders were diagnosed with the World Mental Health Composite International Diagnostic Interview. The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale assessed distress. Multivariate regression models investigated links between correlates and psychological outcomes within each sex. For associations that were statistically significant in only one sex, sex by correlate interactions were computed. RESULTS: In female service members, inverse relations were found between social support and MDD, any MDD or anxiety disorder, suicidal ideation, and distress. No associations were found between religious attendance and outcomes, and spirituality was associated with an increased likelihood of some outcomes. Active coping was related to less psychological distress, while avoidance coping and self-medication were linked to a higher likelihood of most outcomes. Although several statistically significant associations were found in only one sex, only one sex by correlate interaction was statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Social support was found to be inversely related to several negative mental health outcomes in female service members. Few differences between men and women reached statistical significance. Future research should identify additional helpful resources for female service members.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».