ArticleBMC public health2022
Do we cope similarly with different adversities? COVID-19 versus armed conflict.
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.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Predictors of societal and individual resilience across two and a half years of varied adversities.Scientific reports · 2025Article
- Active Engagement: The Impact of Group-Based Physical Activities on the Resilience of Israeli Adolescents with ADHD.Journal of clinical medicine · 2024Article
- Unveiling factors shaping distress levels over 2.5 years of enduring adversity.Scientific reports · 2024Article
- Prediction of individual, community and societal resilience in the Czech Republic compared to Slovakia during the war in Ukraine.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Impact of the war in Ukraine on resilience, protective, and vulnerability factors.Frontiers in public health · 2023Article
- Predictors of hope and despair: Resilience, coping indicators, and demographic characteristics - A longitudinal study.International journal of clinical and health psychology : IJCHPArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.