The Moderating Effects of Coping Strategies on Major Depression in the General Population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the moderating effects of various coping strategies on the association between stressors and the prevalence of major depression in the general population. METHODS: Subjects from the Alberta buy-in component of the 1994-1995 National Population Health Survey (NPHS) were included in the analysis (n = 1039). Each subject was asked 8 questions about coping strategies that dealt with unexpected stress from family problems and personal crises. Major depression was measured using the World Health Organization's (WHO) Composite International Diagnostic Interview-Short Form (CIDI-SF) for major depression. The impacts of coping strategies in relation to psychological stressors on the prevalence of major depression were determined by examining interactions between coping and life stress on major depression using logistic regression modelling. RESULTS: No robust impact of coping strategies in relation to various categories of stress evaluated in the NPHS was observed. There was evidence that the use of "pray and seek religious help" and "talks to others about the situations" as coping strategies by women moderated the risk of major depression in the presence of financial stress and relationship stress (with a partner). Using emotional expression as a coping strategy by women might decrease the risk of major depression in the presence of 1 or more recent life events, personal stress, relationship stress (with a partner), and environmental stress. CONCLUSION: Different coping strategies may have a differential impact on the prevalence of major depression in specific circumstances. These findings may be important both to prevent and to treat depressive disorders.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".