MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2411122100 · doi:10.1017/s2045796015000505

Coping strategies and distress reduction in psychological well-being? A structural equation modelling analysis using a national population sample

2015· article· en· W2411122100 on OpenAlexafffundabout
Xiangfei Meng, Carl D’Arcy

Bibliographic record

VenueEpidemiology and Psychiatric Sciences · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMental Health Treatment and Access
Canadian institutionsUniversity of SaskatchewanMcGill UniversityDouglas Mental Health University Institute
FundersSaskatchewan Health Research Foundation
KeywordsCoping (psychology)Structural equation modelingConfirmatory factor analysisPopulationDistressMental healthPsychologyClinical psychologyExploratory factor analysisPsychiatryMedicinePsychometricsEnvironmental health

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: Little is understood about of the role of coping strategies in psychological well-being (PWB) and distress for the general population and different physical and psychiatric disease groups. A thorough examination of these relationships may provide evidence for the implementation of public mental health promotion and psychiatric disease prevention strategies aimed at improving the use of positive coping approaches or addressing the causes and maintainers of distress. The present study using a structural equation modelling (SEM) approach and nationally representative data on the Canadian population investigates the relationships among PWB, distress and coping strategies and identifies major factors related to PWB for both the general population and diverse-specific disease groups. METHODS: Data examined were from the Canadian Community Health Survey of Mental Health and Well-being (CCHS 1.2), a large national survey (n = 36 984). We applied exploratory factor analysis (EFA), confirmatory factor analysis and SEM to build structural relationships among PWB, distress and coping strategies in the general population. RESULTS: Both SEM measurement and structure models provided a good fit. Distress was positively related to negative coping and negatively related to positive coping. Positive coping indicated a higher level of PWB, whereas negative coping was associated with a lower level of PWB. PWB was negatively related to distress. These same relationships were also found in the population subgroups. For the population with diseases (both physical and psychiatric diseases, except agoraphobia), distress was the more important factor determining subjective PWB than the person's coping strategies, whereas, negative coping had a major impact on distress in the general population. Strengths and limitations were also discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings have practical implications for public psychiatric disease intervention and mental health promotion. As previously noted positive/adaptive coping increased the level of PWB, whereas negative/maladaptive coping was positively related to distress and negatively related to PWB. Distress decreased the level of PWB. Our findings identified major correlates of PWB in both the general population and population subgroups. Our results provide evidence for the differential use of intervention tactics among different target audiences. In order to improve the mental health of the general population public mental health promotion should focus on strategies that reduce negative coping at a population level, whereas clinicians treating individual clients should make the reduction of distress their primary target to maintain or improve patients' PWB.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.011
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.203
Threshold uncertainty score0.404

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0110.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.003
Bibliometrics0.0010.002
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.240
GPT teacher head0.486
Teacher spread0.245 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations76
Published2015
Admission routes3
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEpidemiology and Psychiatric SciencesSame topicMental Health Treatment and AccessFrench-language works237,207