Latent profiles of coping styles and their associations with non-suicidal self-injury in adolescents with social anxiety disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adolescents aged 12–18 with social anxiety disorder (SAD) manifest various emotional and behavioral problems, among which non-suicidal self-injury (NSSI) requires urgent attention. Coping mechanisms for psychological distress significantly impact their vulnerability to NSSI. Understanding the heterogeneity of coping styles among adolescents with SAD can help identify those at high risk for NSSI. However, existing research provides little insight into this matter. This study aims to explore the latent profiles of coping styles in adolescents with SAD and analyze their association with NSSI behaviors. Two hundred and seventy-eight adolescents with SAD were assessed using the Cope-Styles Scale for Middle School Students and the Ottawa Self-Injury Inventor at the clinic. Latent profile analysis was used to analyze their coping styles. The binary logistic regression (using the three-step procedures implemented in the R3STEP auxiliary command) was used to explore sociodemographic predictors of latent coping profiles, such as gender, age, parental marital status, and family economic status. The BCH three-step procedures were employed to analyze differences in NSSI frequency among these profiles. Two profiles were identified, namely the high problem-focused coping group (48.20%) and the low problem-focused coping group (51.80%). Adolescents with SAD in the high problem-focused group had fewer NSSI behaviors than those in the low problem-focused group over the past month (χ 2 = 5.598, P = 0.018), past six months (χ 2 = 5.996, P = 0.014), and past year (χ 2 = 7.171, P = 0.007). In addition, among adolescents with SAD, older age was associated with a significantly lower likelihood of being classified into the low problem-focused coping group (OR = 0.834, SE = 0.070, P = 0.017). Adolescents with SAD who are less inclined to use problem-focused coping strategies are at higher risk of NSSI. Future research should focus on promoting problem-focused coping styles among adolescents with SAD, aiming to help them develop problem-solving skills and enhance their physical and mental health.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".