Resumen: La positividad se refiere a la propensión a pensar positivamente sobre uno mismo, la vida y el futuro, estando muy relacionada con el bienestar y la salud. Por otro lado, las estrategias de afrontamiento utilizadas frente al estrés tienen un importante papel en el desarrollo de problemas de salud mental, entre los que se encuentra el trastorno adaptativo (TA). El objetivo de este estudio fue, primero, analizar las diferencias entre el grupo clínico o de pacientes con TA (N=57) y el grupo control (N=66) en positividad, afrontamiento y algunas variables sociodemográficas significativas; y segundo, comprobar si estas variables permitían predecir, utilizando regresión logística binaria, la pertenencia de los participantes al grupo clíni-co o al control. El grupo clínico presentó menos positividad y mayor uso de estrategias de falta de compromiso que el grupo control. Además, la pertenencia a los grupos se podía predecir correctamente en el 91% de los casos a partir de las variables medidas, siendo los principales factores de riesgo para pertenecer al grupo clínico las estrategias de afrontamiento de búsqueda de apoyo y de falta de compromiso, mientras que la situación laboral activa, el uso del humor, la positividad y una menor edad disminuían dicho riesgo. Palabras clave: Positividad; afrontamiento; estrés; trastorno adaptativo.Title: Positivity and coping in patients with adjustment disorder. Abstract: Positivity construct refers to the propensity to think positively about oneself, life and the future, being closely related to wellbeing and health. Moreover, coping strategies used to manage stress have an important role in the development of mental health problems, one of which is adjustment disorder (AD). The aim of this study was: Firstly, to analyze the differences in positivity, coping, and some relevant socio-demographic variables between the clinical (formed by patients with AD; N=57) and the control (N=66) groups; and secondly, to analyze whether these variables could predict, using binary logistic regression, the participants' membership to the clinical or the control group. The clinical group showed less positivity and a greater use of disengagement strategies compared to the control group. Furthermore, the variables assessed were able to predict the clinical or control group membership with a 91% of success rate. The main risk factors to belong to the clinical group were the use of social support coping and disengagement strategies; whereas active employment status, the use of humor, positivity and younger age decreased this risk.
Background Numerous studies have found that both personality and the coping strategies used in response to stress play important roles in the development of mental health problems, particularly adjustment disorder (AD), which is characterised by the onset of different emotional symptoms or behaviour in response to an identifiable stressor. Methods The aim of this study was to analyse the differences between 80 outpatients (68% female, average age 36) diagnosed with AD at a mental health unit and 80 controls (48% female, average age 39; people subjected to similar stress but with no psychopathology) with regard to personality, coping, and certain socio‐demographic variables. Results Patients presented less extraversion and a considerably greater neuroticism than the control group. They employed disengagement strategies to a greater extent and humour strategies less frequently than the control group. Conclusions The results contribute to clarify a controversial diagnostic category that has been the subject of very little research. They also provide guidelines for intervention.
ResumenIntroducción: La personalidad y las estrategias de afrontamiento utilizadas ante el estrés juegan un papel importante en el desarrollo de problemas de salud mental. El objetivo de este estudio fue comprobar si estas variables, junto con el estrés percibido y algunas variables sociodemográficas significativas, permitían predecir el nivel de sintomatología ansiosa y depresiva presentada en una muestra de personas con Trastorno Adaptativo (TA), y si las variables predictoras eran las mismas en una muestra control. Método: Se aplicó un protocolo compuesto por cuestionarios de estrés percibido, personalidad, positividad, afrontamiento y síntomas a un grupo de pacientes que acudieron a una Unidad de Salud Mental, diagnosticados de Trastorno Adaptativo (N = 80), y a un grupo control (N = 80). Se realizaron análisis de regresión sobre la sintomatología. Resultados: En general, las variables psicológicas y sociodemográficas consideradas contribuyeron en la predicción de la sintomatología, aunque los resultados variaron dependiendo del grupo considerado y del tipo de síntoma. En el grupo control, un mayor neuroticismo, menor positividad, mayor estrés percibido y estar en paro predijeron mayores puntuaciones en depresión, y mayor neuroticismo, estar en paro y ser mujer predijeron mayor ansiedad (no siendo relevante el afrontamiento en ningún caso). En el grupo clínico, la capacidad predictiva de las variables fue menor, especialmente en el caso de la ansiedad. Las variables que predijeron mayor sintomatología depresiva fueron ser menos positivo, un mayor uso del afrontamiento de falta de compromiso o evitativo, ser hombre y estar en paro, mientras que en la predicción de la sintomatología ansiosa sólo resultó significativo el neuroticismo. Conclusiones: Las características de personalidad y afrontamiento, el estrés percibido y las características sociodemográficas podrían ser factores de vulnerabilidad a considerar en el desarrollo de estrategias de evaluación, preventivas y de intervención en personas sometidas a estrés vital, aunque probablemente es importante considerar el tipo de muestra en la selección de las estrategias más relevantes. AbstractIntroduction: Personality and coping used to manage stress play an important role in the development of mental health problems. The aim of this study was to analyse whether these variables, together with perceived stress and some relevant socio-demographic characteristics, could predict the level of anxiety and depressive symptoms presented in people diagnosed with Adjustment Disorder (AD). As well as analysing if the significant predictor variables were the same in the control group. Method: Perceived stress, personality, positivity, coping and symptoms were assessed in a group of patients with Adjustment Disorder who went to a Mental Health Unit (N = 80) and a control group (N = 80). Regression analyses were carried out to predict symptomatology. Results: Psychological and some socio-demographic variables predicted symptomatology, however, the results were different depending on the group and type of symptom considered. In the control group, higher neuroticism and perceived stress, lower positivity, and unemployment status predicted more depressive symptoms; whereas higher neuroticism, being a female, and unemployment predicted higher anxiety (coping was not relevant in any case). In the clinical group, the predictive capacity of variables was lower, especially in the case of anxiety. Lower positivity, greater use of disengagement or avoidant coping, being a male and unemployment predicted higher depressive symptomatology, whereas only neuroticism predicted symptoms of anxiety. Conclusions: Personality, coping, perceived stress and socio-demographic characteristics could be factors of vulnerability that should be considered in the development of assessment, prevention and treatment strategies with people exposed to life stress. However, the characteristics of the group considered are a key factor in the selection of the most relevant strategy
IntroductionAdjustment disorder (AD) is a condition that includes both emotional or/and behavioral symptoms and occurs when individual is unable to cope with stress. It is a common diagnosis but few studies have been done due to controversial diagnosis related to their diagnostic criteria definition. It is often difficult to establish differential diagnosis with condition such as depressive and anxiety disorders or even normal reaction to stressful situations. There are limited tools to evaluate such condition and its definition is focused or based on lack of severity.ObjectivesStudy objective target is to analyse the differences between two groups, a first group with AD and another one with Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) (with different sociodemographic, clinical and triggering individual factors such as vulnerability or copying management).AimsWe try to have a better comprehension and management of depressive conditions.MethodsTwo groups that belongs to Mental Health Community Team are compared. The first one with a diagnosis of AD, and another group with the diagnosis of MD. They have been diagnosed through a structured clinical interview and standard questionnaires to evaluate personality copying management. Other pathologies (such as psychotic, organic,…) were excluded through a structured clinical interview. We analyzed variables considered through variance analysis.ResultsSignificant differences between groups were found in some of the variables considered.ConclusionsThis study have important implications regarding evaluation, differential diagnosis and psychotherapeutic approach to patients with AD and MD.Disclosure of interestThe authors have not supplied their declaration of competing interest.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.