Preventive Care in Nursing and Midwifery Journal
Mon, Feb 3, 2025
[Archive]
Volume 11, Issue 3 (9-2021)
PCNM 2021, 11(3): 9-17 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Yousefi Afrashteh M. The Relationship between Coping Self-efficacy and Social Support with Psychological Well-being in Pregnant Women Referring
to Health Centers During the Coronavirus Outbreak. PCNM 2021; 11 (3) :9-17
URL: http://nmcjournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-739-en.html
URL: http://nmcjournal.zums.ac.ir/article-1-739-en.html
PhD, Assistant Professor, Department of psychology, faculty of humanities, university of zanjan, zanjan, Iran , yousefi@znu.ac.ir
Abstract: (6513 Views)
Background: Paying attention to the psychological health of pregnant women, especially during the critical time of the coronavirus outbreak, is a major global concern, especially in Iran.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between coping self-efficacy and social support with the psychological well-being of pregnant women referring to health centers during the coronavirus outbreak.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 365 pregnant women aged 16-42 years referred to health centers in Hamadan in 2020. A demographic questionnaire, the short form of the Ryff psychological well-being scale, the Zimet multidimensional scale of perceived social support, and the coping self-efficacy scale developed by Chesney et al. were used to collect data. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26 statistical software.
Results: Our results showed that the problem-based (beta coefficient of 0.25), emotion-based (beta coefficient of 0.21), and social-based (beta coefficient of 0.19) coping styles had a significant role in pregnant women’s psychological well-being at an error level of < 0.05. Among the components of perceived social support, the family’s (beta coefficient of 0.24) and others’ (beta coefficient of 0.17) support rendered significant results. The regression of psychological well-being score with coping self-efficacy (beta coefficient of 0.25) and perceived social support (beta coefficient of 0.22) was statistically significant at an error level of <0.05.
Conclusion: Coping self-efficacy and perceived social support can affect the psychological well-being of pregnant women. So, abnormalities in these variables can lead to psychological problems in these individuals, which can be prevented by timely screening and providing counseling to the mother and her family, especially the spouse.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to determine the relationship between coping self-efficacy and social support with the psychological well-being of pregnant women referring to health centers during the coronavirus outbreak.
Methods: This cross-sectional study was performed on 365 pregnant women aged 16-42 years referred to health centers in Hamadan in 2020. A demographic questionnaire, the short form of the Ryff psychological well-being scale, the Zimet multidimensional scale of perceived social support, and the coping self-efficacy scale developed by Chesney et al. were used to collect data. Data were analyzed using SPSS 26 statistical software.
Results: Our results showed that the problem-based (beta coefficient of 0.25), emotion-based (beta coefficient of 0.21), and social-based (beta coefficient of 0.19) coping styles had a significant role in pregnant women’s psychological well-being at an error level of < 0.05. Among the components of perceived social support, the family’s (beta coefficient of 0.24) and others’ (beta coefficient of 0.17) support rendered significant results. The regression of psychological well-being score with coping self-efficacy (beta coefficient of 0.25) and perceived social support (beta coefficient of 0.22) was statistically significant at an error level of <0.05.
Conclusion: Coping self-efficacy and perceived social support can affect the psychological well-being of pregnant women. So, abnormalities in these variables can lead to psychological problems in these individuals, which can be prevented by timely screening and providing counseling to the mother and her family, especially the spouse.
Type of Study: Orginal research |
Subject:
other
Received: 2021/03/22 | Accepted: 2021/09/1 | Published: 2021/09/1
Received: 2021/03/22 | Accepted: 2021/09/1 | Published: 2021/09/1
References
1. 1. Bao Y, Sun Y, Meng S, Shi J, Lu L. 2019-nCoV epidemic: address mental health care to empower society. Lancet. 2020; 395(10224): e37-38. [Crossref]
2. Barbisch D, Koenig KL, Shih FY. Is there a case for quarantine? Perspectives from SARS to Ebola. Disaster Med Public Health Prep. 2015; 9(5): 547-53. [Crossref]
3. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. lancet. 2020; 395(10227): 912-20. [Crossref]
4. Duan L, Zhu G. Psychological interventions for people affected by the COVID-19 epidemic. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020; 7(4): 300-2. [Crossref]
5. Chen H, Guo J, Wang C, Luo F, Yu X, Zhang W, et al. Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: a retrospective review of medical records. lancet. 2020; 395(10226): 809-15. [Crossref]
6. Yu N, Li W, Kang Q, Xiong Z, Wang S, Lin X, et al. Clinical features and obstetric and neonatal outcomes of pregnant patients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective, single-centre, descriptive study. Lancet Infect Dis. 2020; 20(5): 559-64. [Crossref]
7. Liu H, Wang LL, Zhao SJ, Kwak-Kim J, Mor G, Liao AH. Why are pregnant women susceptible to COVID-19? An immunological viewpoint. J Reprod Immunol. 2020; 139: 103122. [Crossref]
8. Yavari P, Akbarin H, Sharifi H. Epidemiology textbook of Prevalent Disease in Iran. Tehran: Gap; 2019: 535. [In Persian]
9. Ryff CD, Keyes CL. The structure of psychological well-being revisited. J pers soc psychol. 1995; 69(4): 719. [Crossref]
10. Huta V, Waterman AS. Eudaimonia and its distinction from hedonia: Developing a classification and terminology for understanding conceptual and operational definitions. Journal of Happiness Studies. 2014 Dec; 15(6):1425-56. [Crossref]
11. Kim HS, Plester BA. Harmony and distress: humor, culture, and psychological well-being in south Korean organizations. Front psychol. 2019; 9: 2643. [Crossref]
12. Chesney MA, Neilands TB, Chambers DB, Taylor JM, Folkman S. A validity and reliability study of the coping self‐efficacy scale. Br J Health Psychol. 2006; 11(3): 421-37. [Crossref]
13. Pisanti R, Lombardo C, Lucidi F, Lazzari D, Bertini M. Development and validation of a brief occupational coping self‐efficacy questionnaire for nurses. J Adv Nurs. 2008; 62(2): 238-47. [Crossref]
14. January J. (2010). Hope and coping self-efficacy as predictors of psychological well-being among adolescents in Gauteng. [Unpublished dissertation]. South Africa: University of Johanesburg.
15. Cunningham CA, Cramer RJ, Cacace S, Franks M, Desmarais SL. The Coping Self-Efficacy Scale: Psychometric properties in an outpatient sample of active duty military personnel. Mil Psychol. 2020; 32(3): 261-72. [Crossref]
16. Shahdadi H, Mansuri A, Khammari M, Ghorbani-Dindarlu F. An Investigation of the Relationship between mental health and Self- Efficacy in Diabetic Patients Referring to Ali Asghar Clinic of Zahedan. J Diabetes Nurs. 2016; 4(1): 85-94. [In Persian]
17. de Paula Couto MC, Koller SH, Novo R. Stressful life events and psychological well-being in a Brazilian sample of older persons: The role of resilience. Ageing Int. 2011; 36(4): 492-505. [Crossref]
18. Caprara GV, Steca P. Affective and social self-regulatory efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. European psychol. 2005; 10(4): 275-86. [Crossref]
19. Mazaheri M, Bahramian S. Prediction of Psychological Well-Being based on the Positive and Negative Affection and Coping Self-Efficacy. J Posit Psychol Res. 1(4): 1-14.
20. Sarafino EP, Smith TW. Health psychology: Biopsychosocial interactions. John Wiley & Sons; 2014 Jan 13.
21. Naderi-Boldaji R, Moradi A, Mobasheri M, mirzaeian R, Yusefi Z. Exploring the relationship between the social support and attachment styles for predict psychological well-being of Pregnant Women In Borujen County. J Clin Nurs Midwifery. 2014; 2(4) :37-44. [In Persian]
22. Barjasteh S, Moghaddam Tabrizi F. Antenatal anxiety and pregnancy worries in association with marital and social support. Nurs Midwifery J. 2016; 14(6): 504-15. [In Persian]
23. Abdollahzade Rafi M, Hassanzadeh M, Ahmadi S, taheri M, Hosseini M. Relationship between social support with depression and anxiety during third trimester pregnancy. Iran J Nurs Res. 2012; 7(26): 1-10. [In Persian]
24. Adamczyk K, Segrin, Ch. Perceived social support and mental health among single vs. partnered Polish young adults. Curr Psychol. 2015; 34(1): 82-96. [Crossref]
25. Zimet GD, Dahlem NW, Zimet SG, Farley GK. The multidimensional scale of perceived social support. J Pers Assess. 1988; 52(1): 30-41. [Crossref]
26. Naderi -Boldaji R, Moradi A, Mobasheri M, mirzaeian R, Yusefi Z. Exploring the relationship between the social support and attachment styles for predict psychological well-being of pregnant women in Borujen county. J Clin Nurs Midwifery. 2014; 2(4) :37-44. [In Persian]
27. Basharpoor S, Heydarirad H, Daryadel SJ, Heydari F, Ghamari Givi H, Kishore J. The role of perceived stress and social support among predicting anxiety in pregnant women. J Holist Nurs Midwifery. 2017; 27(2): 9-16. [In Persian] [Crossref]
28. Yuksel A, Bayrakci H. Self-efficacy, psychological well-being and perceived social support levels in pregnant women. Int J Car Sci. 2019; 12(2): 1120.
29. Gau ML, Chang CY, Tian SH, Lin KC. Effects of birth ball exercise on pain and self-efficacy during childbirth: a randomised controlled trial in Taiwan. Midwifery. 2011; 27(6): e293-300. [Crossref]
30. Ginja S, Coad J, Bailey E, Kendall S, Goodenough T, Nightingale S, et al. Associations between social support, mental wellbeing, self-efficacy and technology use in first-time antenatal women: data from the BaBBLeS cohort study. BMC Pregnancy Childbirth. 2018; 18(1): 1-1. [Crossref]
31. Ates B. Perceived Social Support and Assertiveness as a Predictor of Candidates Psychological Counselors' Psychological Well-Being. Int Educ Stud. 2016; 9: 28-39. [Crossref]
32. Shokri O, Kormi Nouri R, Farahani M, Moradi A. The Quality of College Life from Viewpoint of Native and Non-Native Students of Tehran's Public Universities. J Iran Cultur Res. 2016; 9(2): 75-100. [In Persian]
33. Bahramian H, Morovati Z, Yousefi Afrashteh, M, amiri, M. Reliability, validity, and factorial analysis of coping self-efficacy scale. Clin Psychol Pers. 2017; 15(2): 215-26.
34. RYFF, Carol D.; KEYES, Corey LM; HUGHES, Diane L. Status inequalities, perceived discrimination, and eudaimonic well-being: Do the challenges of minority life hone purpose and growth?. Journal of health and Social Behavior, 2003, 275-291. [Crossref]
35. Seyed Tabaee R, Rahmatinejad P, Mohammadi D, Etemad A. The role of coping strategies and cognitive emotion regulation in well-being of patients with cancer. J. Inflamm Dis. 2017; 21(2): 41-49. [In Persian]
36. Goudarz M, Foroughan M, Makarem A, Rashedi V. Relationship between social support and subjective well-being in older adults. Iran J Age. 2015; 10(3): 110-19. [In Persian]
37. Klainin-Yobas P, Ramirez D, Fernandez Z, Sarmiento J, Thanoi W, Ignacio J, et al. examining the predicting effect of mindfulness on psychological well-being among undergraduate students: A structural equation modelling approach. Pers individ differ. 2016, 91: 63-68. [Crossref]
38. Halbreich U, Karkun S. Cross-cultural and social diversity of prevalence of postpartum depression and depressive symptoms. J Affect Disord. 2006; 91: 97-111. [Crossref]
39. Fisher J, de Mello MC, Patel V, Rahman A, Tran T, Holton S, et al. Prevalence and determinants of common perinatal mental disorders in women in low- and lower-middle-income countries: a systematic review. Bull World Health Organ. 2012; 90(2): 139-49. [Crossref]
40. Cohen S, Wills TA. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol Bull. 1985; 98: 310-57. [Crossref]
41. Laureano C, Grobbelaar HW, Nienaber AW. Facilitating the coping self-efficacy and psychological well-being of student rugby players. S Afr J Psychol. 2014; 44(4): 483-97. [Crossref]
42. Thom B, Benedict C. The impact of financial toxicity on psychological well-being, coping self-efficacy, and cost-coping behaviors in young adults with cancer. J adolesc Young Adult Oncol. 2019. 8(3): 236-42. [Crossref]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
