Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36673747›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Gender Differences in Coping and Psychological Adaptation during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Rosann Cholankeril, Ellen Xiang, Hoda Badr

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 45 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
45citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
23.5field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
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

45 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 75 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. The second victim phenomenon´s impact in male and female healthcare workers: a scoping review.International journal for quality in health care : journal of the International Society for Quality in Health Care · 2025
    Article
  20. 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

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Rosann CholankerilDepartment of Medicine, Section of Epidemiology and Population Science, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Ellen XiangDepartment of Medicine, Section of Epidemiology and Population Science, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-9577-5308
Hoda BadrDepartment of Medicine, Section of Epidemiology and Population Science, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.ORCID 0000-0002-4549-9111
Baylor College of Medicine · USMilken Institute · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This population-based study investigated gender differences in the use of coping strategies and their relationship to anxiety symptoms during the initial COVID-19 lockdown period in the United States. A national online survey was administered between 13 April 2020 and 8 June 2020. The study sample comprised 1673 respondents (66% women). Overall, 46% reported high levels of anxiety, and women experienced significantly (p < 0.001) higher levels of anxiety than men. Women were significantly (p < 0.05) more likely to use acceptance, self-distraction, positive reframing, and emotional support than men. Significant interactions between gender and coping strategies were also identified. Women engaging in high (+1SD) vs. low (−1SD) levels of active coping were not found to have significantly different anxiety levels. In contrast, men reported higher levels of anxiety when they engaged in high levels of active coping and lower levels of anxiety when they engaged in low levels of active coping (b2 = 0.88, t = 3.33, p = 0.001). Additionally, women engaging in high levels of acceptance and positive reframing reported significantly lower anxiety levels than when engag-ing in low levels of acceptance (b1 = −1.03, t = −4.58, p < 0.001) and positive reframing (b1 = −0.72, t = −3.95, p < 0.001). No significant associations between acceptance and positive reframing levels and anxiety levels were found with men. Overall, these findings extend our understanding of the nature of gender differences in stress responsivity during periods of high psychological distress and can inform the development of mental health interventions to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic and future infectious disease outbreaks.

Indexed as

COVID-19Adaptation, PsychologicalAnxietyCommunicable Disease ControlFemaleHumansMalePandemicsSex FactorsStress, Psychologicaladaptive copinganxietycoping strategiesCOVID-19maladaptive copingmental healthpsychological distress

Identifiers

PMID36673747
PMCPMC9859033
OpenAlexW4313509701

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.