ArticleFrontiers in public health2026
Gendered networks of psychological adaptation under prolonged war.
Article in Frontiers in public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Introduction: Understanding how men and women navigate profound, prolonged adversity is central to human resilience. Drawing on frameworks of masculine norms and emotion regulation, and moving beyond traditional mean-level comparisons, this exploratory, cross-sectional study used a network approach to examine gender differences in the structural organization of traumatic life events, stress symptoms, health-related quality of life, meaning in life, and coping strategies during prolonged war. Methods: We assessed 313 Israeli adults (Mean age = 43.49, SD = 14.13; 51% women) via self-report questionnaires. Network analyses compared self-identified men and women across structural topology, community organization, centrality, and predictability. Results: The primary Network Comparison Test detected no statistically significant difference between men and women in overall network structure or global strength. No individual edge or node-centrality difference survived correction for multiple comparisons. Secondary analyses nevertheless identified more localized differences in selected aspects of topology, community organization, bridge connectivity, and predictability. Specifically, the women's network showed higher density and local clustering, and dysfunctional coping differed in its community placement and cross-community connectivity, whereas the men's network showed higher mean node predictability. These secondary findings describe localized features within networks that remained comparable at the global level and should be interpreted as exploratory, cross-sectional evidence. Conclusions: These structural observations outline suggestive patterns that warrant confirmation in future longitudinal samples, rather than serving as direct bases for clinical protocols. Formulated as hypotheses for future research, the men's integrated networks suggest that single, coping-focused interventions might be associated with broader changes across symptoms. In contrast, the women's modular networks suggest a potential need for multi-targeted approaches incorporating broader social resources. Ultimately, these descriptive findings highlight the value of gender-sensitive frameworks for understanding psychological adaptation to chronic collective threats.
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.