Wineman N M, Durand E J, Steiner R P
College of Nursing, University of Akron, OH 44325-3701.
Res Nurs Health. 1994 Jun;17(3):185-94. doi: 10.1002/nur.4770170306.
Coping behaviors in individuals with multiple sclerosis (MS) or a spinal cord injury (SCI) were compared. Data were collected on 433 subjects with MS and 257 with SCI. Coping and illness uncertainty were measured by the Ways of Coping Checklist (revised) and the Mishel Uncertainty in Illness Scale. Results of the multivariate analysis of covariance indicated that there was no significant difference between the groups for the use of emotion-focused coping (EFC) or problem-focused coping (PFC). However, there was a significant difference in coping depending on illness uncertainty and the appraisal of life with a disability. Subjects used more EFC at high uncertainty and more PFC at no uncertainty compared to the other levels. When situations were appraised as dangerous, EFC was used more often, and when situations were appraised as an opportunity, PFC was used. The construct of vulnerability emerged as an important antecedent variable. When vulnerability was not included in the analysis, a spurious difference in EFC was found between the groups. Multiple regression results indicated that, for both groups, the choice of coping strategies had no significant effect in explaining emotional well-being while controlling for selected sociodemographic and disability-related variables.
对患有多发性硬化症（MS）或脊髓损伤（SCI）的个体的应对行为进行了比较。收集了433名MS患者和257名SCI患者的数据。应对方式和疾病不确定性通过应对方式清单（修订版）和米舍尔疾病不确定性量表进行测量。协方差多元分析结果表明，两组在使用情绪聚焦应对（EFC）或问题聚焦应对（PFC）方面没有显著差异。然而，根据疾病不确定性和对残疾生活的评估，应对方式存在显著差异。与其他水平相比，受试者在高不确定性时更多地使用EFC，在无不确定性时更多地使用PFC。当情况被评估为危险时，更多地使用EFC，当情况被评估为机会时，使用PFC。脆弱性这一概念成为一个重要的先行变量。当分析中不包括脆弱性时，发现两组在EFC方面存在虚假差异。多元回归结果表明，对于两组而言，在控制选定的社会人口学和残疾相关变量时，应对策略的选择对解释情绪幸福感没有显著影响。
