Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn order to create a single measure that simultaneously measures emotion‐, problem‐, and relationship‐focused coping, an exploratory factor analysis was performed on Coyne and Smith's (1994) Relationship‐Focused Coping Scale (RFCS) and Carver's (1997) Brief COPE, using data collected from 182 married couples. In 90 couples both spouses were healthy; in 92 couples, one spouse had a chronic illness. Results yielded an abridged 23‐item, 6‐factor measure. Using the new measure, a series of repeated measures analyses of variance were conducted to determine whether coping styles vary by gender and health. Results showed husbands and wives differ in their use of active engagement, approach coping, and protective buffering depending on whether they are healthy or ill. Guided by Kenny's (1990) Actor‐Partner Interaction Model (APIM), results of hierarchical linear modeling analyses using SAS Proc Mixed showed couples who are more congruent in their use of active engagement, and more complementary in their use of protective buffering and avoidance coping report greater marital adjustment. Although husbands and wives may employ different coping strategies, these results highlight the importance of examining the ways in which spouses cope together in the face of a shared stressor.
The course of true love never did run smooth.–—William Shakespeare

This study sought to identify individual-level determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy based on the Health Belief Model (HBM) and Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB). An online population-based survey was distributed in English and Spanish. Data were derived from 1208 U.S. adults (52% female; 38.7% minorities), 43.5% of whom reported vaccine hesitancy. Multivariable analysis revealed that unemployed individuals were more likely (OR = 1.78, 95% CI: 1.16–2.73, p = 0.009) and married (OR = 0.57, 95% CI: 0.39–0.81, p = 0.002) and higher income individuals (OR = 0.52, 95% CI 0.32–0.84, p = 0.008) were less likely to be hesitant. Individuals with greater perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 (OR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.71–0.94, p = 0.006), who perceived vaccination as being convenient (OR = 0.86, 95% CI: 0.74–1.00, p = 0.047), and who afforded greater importance to cues to action from government (OR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74–0.95, p = 0.005), public health (OR = 0.70, 95% CI: 0.59–0.82, p < 0.001), and healthcare experts (OR = 0.59, 95% CI: 0.50–0.69, p < 0.001) were also less likely to be hesitant. Findings suggest that HBM and TPB constructs may be useful in informing strategies to improve COVID-19 vaccine uptake. Specifically, framing appeals based on perceptions of COVID-19 susceptibility, making vaccination convenient, and rebuilding trust through unified cues to action may help to overcome vaccine hesitancy.