Coping strategies and personality traits among individuals with brain injury and depressive symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this observational cohort study was to compare coping strategies and personality traits among individuals with acquired brain injury (ABI), based on their level of depression symptoms. METHODS: Participants were recruited from an ABI outpatient clinic in Ontario, Canada. Participants were selected using the following inclusion criteria: 1) diagnosed with an ABI, 2) 18 years of age, and 3) able to read and write in English. Individuals completed the Patient Health Questionnaire 9-item (PHQ-9), Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, Anxiety Sensitivity Index, Adult Dispositional Hope Scale, Big Five Inventory, Brief Coping Orientation of Problems Experienced, and Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. A descriptive analysis was performed for the overall sample, as well as for each subclassification of depression: none (PHQ-9 = 0-4), mild (PHQ-9 = 5-9), moderate (PHQ-9 = 10-14), and severe (PHQ-9 = 15-27). A one-way multivariate analysis of variance, with post hoc Bonferroni-corrected tests, was conducted to assess the impact of depression symptoms on coping strategies and personality traits. RESULTS: A total of 89 individuals (56.2% females) were included with a mean age of 46.6±15.1 years and a mean Glasgow Coma Scale score of 13.2±3.4. Overall, individuals were 3.5±4.3 years post injury. There was a statistically significant interaction effect between depression groups and the combined coping strategy and personality trait variables (F(36,128)=2.959, p < .001; Wilks' Λ= .167). Individuals with mild (p = .045), moderate (p = .004) and severe (p < .001) depression symptoms had greater experiential avoidance (EA) than those without depression. Those with severe depression symptoms had significantly greater anxiety sensitivity than those with no (p < 0.001), mild, (p = .004) or moderate (p = .025) depression symptoms. Overall, individuals in the no, mild, and moderate depression groups used emotion-focused strategies primarily, followed by dysfunctional strategies for coping. Conversely, those with severe depression symptoms primarily used dysfunctional strategies, followed by emotion-focused strategies to cope. All depression groups applied problem-based coping strategies infrequently. CONCLUSIONS: The use of passive coping strategies combined with increased EA behaviours among severely depressed individuals with ABI may lead to long-term negative outcomes. Programs that promote problem-based coping and reduce EA behaviours may be beneficial in reducing disability and impaired quality of life associated with depression symptoms in individuals with ABI.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".