School of Behavioral Sciences, Peres Academic Center, Israel.
Health and Society Group, Wageningen University, Netherlands.
Glob Health Promot. 2021 Jun;28(2):17-26. doi: 10.1177/1757975921992957. Epub 2021 Feb 18.
Employing the salutogenic model, we asked how individuals in different countries cope with the COVID-19 crisis and stay healthy. We were interested in exploring the individual (i.e. sense of coherence) as well as the social and national resources (i.e. social support, sense of national coherence, and trust in governmental institutions) that could explain levels of mental health and anxiety during the outbreak of the pandemic. Data collection was conducted via convenience sampling on online platforms, during the end of March and the beginning of April 2020. The data included four samples: 640 Israeli participants (319 males), 622 Dutch participants (177 males), 924 Italian participants (338 males) and 489 Spanish participants (117 males); age range of 18-88 years. The questionnaires included standard tools (MHC-SF, GAD-7, SOC, SONC). Several questions were adapted to the context of coronavirus and measured levels of exposure to COVID-19, trust in governmental institutions, and social support. The results significantly confirmed the suggested salutogenic model regarding the contribution to individual and national coping resources to anxiety levels and mental health. The patterns of the coping resources in explaining anxiety and mental health were similar in the four samples, and SOC was the main predictor these outcomes. Despite these similarities, a different pattern and also different magnitudes of the predictive value of the coping resources were found for the two different reactions: anxiety vs. mental health. While SOC and situational factors (like financial threat) were significant in explaining anxiety levels, the SOC and national resources were found as significant in explaining mental health levels. The findings support the salutogenic approach in studying reactions during pandemic time. They also shed some light on the difference between pathogenic and salutogenic measures in studying psychological reactions to stressful situations.
运用健康促进模式，我们探讨了不同国家的个体如何应对 COVID-19 危机并保持健康。我们感兴趣的是探索个体（即心理一致感）以及社会和国家资源（即社会支持、国家凝聚力感和对政府机构的信任），这些因素可以解释大流行期间的心理健康和焦虑水平。数据收集是通过在线平台上的方便抽样在 2020 年 3 月底和 4 月初进行的。数据包括四个样本：640 名以色列参与者（319 名男性）、622 名荷兰参与者（177 名男性）、924 名意大利参与者（338 名男性）和 489 名西班牙参与者（117 名男性）；年龄在 18-88 岁之间。问卷包括标准工具（MHC-SF、GAD-7、SOC、SONC）。一些问题适应了冠状病毒的背景，衡量了 COVID-19 的暴露水平、对政府机构的信任和社会支持。结果显著证实了建议的健康促进模式，即个体和国家应对资源对焦虑水平和心理健康的贡献。在解释焦虑和心理健康方面，四种样本的应对资源模式相似，SOC 是这些结果的主要预测因素。尽管存在这些相似之处，但对于两种不同的反应（焦虑与心理健康），应对资源的预测价值模式和幅度也有所不同。虽然 SOC 和情境因素（如财务威胁）在解释焦虑水平方面具有重要意义，但 SOC 和国家资源被发现对解释心理健康水平具有重要意义。研究结果支持在研究大流行期间反应时采用健康促进方法。它们还为在研究对压力情况的心理反应时，将病原学和健康促进措施进行区分提供了一些启示。
