Coping strategies and self-esteem in the high-risk offspring of bipolar parents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: This study investigated whether there were differences in coping strategies and self-esteem between offspring of parents with bipolar disorder (high-risk) and offspring of unaffected parents (control), and whether these psychological factors predicted the onset and recurrence of mood episodes. METHODS: High-risk and control offspring were followed longitudinally as part of the Flourish Canadian high-risk bipolar offspring cohort study. Offspring were clinically assessed annually by a psychiatrist using semi-structured interviews and completed a measure of coping strategies and self-esteem. RESULTS: In high-risk offspring, avoidant coping strategies significantly increased the hazard of a new onset Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition twice revised mood episode or recurrence (hazard ratio: 1.89, p = 0.04), while higher self-esteem significantly decreased this hazard (hazard ratio: 2.50, p < 0.01). Self-esteem and avoidant coping significantly interacted with one another ( p < 0.05), where the risk of a Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 4th Edition twice revised new onset mood episode or recurrence was only significantly increased among high-risk offspring with both high avoidant coping and low self-esteem. CONCLUSION: A reduction of avoidant coping strategies in response to stress and improvement of self-esteem may be useful intervention targets for preventing the new onset or recurrence of a clinically significant mood disorder among individuals at high familial risk.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".