Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37818342›Full record

ReviewPsychology in Russia : state of the art2023

Coping Strategies During the COVID-19 Pandemic and Self-Determination: A Review of Russian Studies.

E A Kuznetsova, N L Moskvicheva, E V Zinovyeva, S N Kostromina

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Psychology in Russia : state of the art, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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.

E A KuznetsovaSaint Petersburg State University, Russia.
N L MoskvichevaSaint Petersburg State University, Russia.
E V ZinovyevaSaint Petersburg State University, Russia.
S N KostrominaSaint Petersburg State University, Russia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic is a multifaceted stressor. Its impact suggests long-term psychological effects. Self-determination promotes flexibility of goals and actions and helps to overcome the difficulties caused by stress. Objective: To analyze coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic presented in Russian scientific studies (RQ1), and their relationship with self-determination (RQ2). Design: Relevant studies (2020-2022) were selected from the Russian citation index (RSCI) database. Strict selection criteria were used. Twenty-four articles were selected for the final review. For dynamic analysis, four stages of the pandemic were identified. Results: Prevailing coping strategies have changed over time. At the beginning of the pandemic, respondents used familiar coping mechanisms. Six months later, active coping strategies were more often used, but deprivation and avoidance strategies increased. A year later, there was an increase in denial and avoidance strategies. Using non-constructive coping strategies may indicate that, due to the long course of the pandemic, meeting basic psychological needs became increasingly frustrated, leading to helplessness, alienation, and lack of control. Later dynamics reflect the growth of effective coping strategies and confirm that when basic needs are blocked for a long time, people seek alternative ways to satisfy them. Conclusion: The dynamics of coping strategies during the pandemic reflected their close relationship with basic psychological needs, as described in the theory of self-determination. The results confirmed the importance of self-determination as a dispositional variable in predicting coping mechanisms.

Indexed as

coping strategiesCOVID-19pandemicself-determinationstress

Identifiers

PMID37818342
PMCPMC10561783

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.