Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38603097›Full record

ArticleIllness, crises, and loss2023

Coping Orientation of Academic Community in the Time of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pilot Multi-Country Survey Study.

Saeid Zandi, Fereshteh Ahmadi, Önver A Cetrez, Sharareh Akhavan

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Illness, crises, and loss, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing 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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Coping Methods and Satisfaction with Working from Home in Academic Settings during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    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.

Saeid ZandiDepartment of Social Work and Criminology, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.
Fereshteh AhmadiDepartment of Social Work and Criminology, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8823-6434
Önver A CetrezFaculty of Theology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
Sharareh AkhavanDepartment of Social Work and Criminology, Faculty of Health and Occupational Studies, University of Gävle, Gävle, Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

In this paper, we have mapped the coping methods used to address the coronavirus pandemic by members of the academic community. We conducted an anonymous survey of a convenient sample of 674 faculty/staff members and students from September to December 2020. A modified version of the RCOPE scale was used for data collection. The results indicate that both religious and existential coping methods were used by respondents. The study also indicates that even though 71% of informants believed in God or another religious figure, 61% reported that they had tried to gain control of the situation directly without the help of God or another religious figure. The ranking of the coping strategies used indicates that the first five methods used by informants were all non-religious coping methods (i.e., secular existential coping methods): regarding life as a part of a greater whole, regarding nature as an important resource, listening to the sound of surrounding nature, being alone and contemplating, and walking/engaging in any activities outdoors giving a spiritual feeling. Our results contribute to the new area of research on academic community's coping with pandemic-related stress and challenges.

Indexed as

academicsacademic staffcoping strategiescoronavirus epidemichigher education

Identifiers

PMID38603097
PMCPMC9014345

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.