MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3144440951 · doi:10.1101/2021.03.30.21254632

Coping with COVID-19 Pandemic: A Population-Based Study in Bangladesh

2021· preprint· en· W3144440951 on OpenAlexaff
K M Amran Hossain, Karen Saunders, Mohamed Sakel, Lori Maria Walton, Veena Raigangar, Zakir Uddin, Mohammad Anwar Hossain, Asma Islam, Faruq Ahmed, Rafey Faruqui, Tasnim Tamanna, Shohag Rana, Rubayet Shafin, Md. Shahoriar Ahmed, Md. Obaidul Haque, Md. Feroz Kabir, Mohammad Sohrab Hossain, Iqbal Kabir Jahid, Mst. Hosneara Yasmin, Sonjit Kumar Chakrovorty, Md. Shahadat Hossain, Joty Paul

Bibliographic record

VenuemedRxiv · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoping (psychology)Marital statusPsychologyPandemicCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Clinical psychologyPopulationCross-sectional studyDemographyMedicineDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT This study aims to investigate coping strategies used by Bangladeshi citizens during the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Prospective, cross-sectional survey of adults (N=2001) living in Bangladesh. Methods Participants were interviewed for socio-demographic data and completed the Bengali translated Brief-COPE Inventory. Statistical data analysis was conducted using SPSS (Version 20). Results Participants (N=2001), aged 18 to 86 years, were recruited from eight administrative divisions within Bangladesh (mean age 31.85±14.2 years). Male to female participant ratio was 53.4% (n=1074) to 46.6% (n=927). Higher scores were reported for approach coping styles (29.83±8.9), with lower scores reported for avoidant coping styles (20.83 ± 6.05). Humor coping scores were reported at 2.68±1.3 and religion coping scores at 5.64±1.8. Both men and women showed similar coping styles. Multivariate analysis found a significant relationship between male gender and both humor and avoidant coping (p <.01). Male gender was found to be inversely related to both religion and approach coping (p <.01). Marital status and education were significantly related to all coping style domains (p<.01). Occupation was significantly related to approach coping (p <.01). Rural and urban locations differed significantly in participant coping styles (p <.01). Factor analysis revealed two cluster groups (Factor 1 and 2) comprised of unique combinations from all coping style domains. Conclusion Participants in this study coped with the COVID-19 pandemic by utilizing a combination of coping strategies. Factor 1 revealed both avoidant and approach coping strategies and Factor 2 revealed a combination of humor and avoidant coping strategies. Overall, a higher utilization of approach coping strategies was reported, which has previously been associated with better physical and mental health outcomes. Religion was found to be a coping strategy for all participants. Future research may focus on understanding resilience in vulnerable populations, including people with disability or with migrant or refugee status in Bangladesh.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.030

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.140
GPT teacher head0.444
Teacher spread0.304 · 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

Citations4
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuemedRxiv→Same topicCOVID-19 and Mental Health→French-language works237,207→