Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36419033›Full record

ArticleBMC public health2022

Do we cope similarly with different adversities? COVID-19 versus armed conflict.

Shaul Kimhi, Hadas Marciano, Yohanan Eshel, Bruria Adini

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC public health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Shaul KimhiResWell Research Collaboration, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel.
Hadas MarcianoStress and Resilience Research Center, Tel-Hai College, Tel-Hai, Israel.
Yohanan EshelStress and Resilience Research Center, Tel-Hai College, Tel-Hai, Israel.
Bruria AdiniResWell Research Collaboration, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv, Israel. adini@tauex.tau.ac.il.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundVaried populations may react differently to similar crises, depending on their social, cultural, and personal backgrounds; conversely, the same populations may respond differently to varied adversities. The current study aimed to examine three types of resilience (individual, community, and societal resilience) predicting six coping mechanisms (sense of danger, anxiety and depressive symptoms, well-being, hope, and morale) among the same sample of people that faced across two different adversities-COVID-19 and an armed conflict.

methodsTwo repeated measurements of the same Israeli sample (N = 593) were employed, through an internet panel. The research variables were examined through a structured, quantitative questionnaire that consisted of nine scales, based on validated and reliable questionnaires.

resultsResults indicated that: (a) respondents reported more difficulties in coping with the COVID-19 crisis, compared to the armed conflict, in all variables but morale. (b) similar patterns of correlations among the study variables were found in both measurements. (c) path's analysis indicated similar patterns of prediction of distress and well-being by individual and societal resilience. Use of the coping mechanism varied depending on the perception of the threat: COVID -19 is perceived as a less familiar and predictable adversity, which is harder to cope with, compared with the more familiar risk - an armed conflict, which is a recurrent threat in Israel. The correlations between the investigated psychological responses and the impacts of resilience on the coping and distress mechanism were similar in both adversities.

conclusionsThe results indicate that respondents tend to react in a similar pattern of associations among resilience, distress, and well-being across different adversities, such as COVID and armed conflict. However, individuals tend to regard unfamiliar, less predictable adversities as more complex to cope with, compared to better-known crises. Furthermore, respondents tend to underestimate the risks of potential familiar adversities. Healthcare professionals must be aware of and understand the coping mechanisms of individuals during adversities, to appropriately design policies for the provision of medical and psychological care during varied emergencies.

Indexed as

COVID-19Adaptation, PsychologicalArmed ConflictsHumansResearchSurveys and QuestionnairesArmed conflictCOVID-19DistressResilienceWellbeing

Identifiers

PMID36419033
PMCPMC9684926

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.