3.1 Participant characteristics (table 1)
Table 1. Association between socio-demographic variables and indicators of general health status at covid-19
Variables
|
N(%)
|
Somatic symptom
|
Anxiety/Insomnia
|
Social Disfunction
|
Severe Depression
|
|
R-Squared
|
Adjusted R-Squared
|
P-value (95% CI)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
P-value (95% CI)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
P-value (95% CI)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
P-value (95% CI)
|
|
|
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men
|
168 (38.7)
|
0.039
|
0.0368
|
Reference
|
0.028
|
0.026
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.005
|
0.005
|
Reference
|
|
|
Women
|
266 (61.3)
|
0.00*(-2.75 to -.99)
|
0.00*(-2.98 to 0.84)
|
0.59 (-1.04 to 0.59)
|
0.15 (-1.32 to 0.20)
|
|
|
Age
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 - 28
|
181 (41.7)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
29 - 38
|
124 (28.6)
|
0.013
|
0.004
|
-0.34 (-1.57 to 0.54)
|
0.022
|
0.013
|
0.02* (-2.73 to -0.19)
|
0.034
|
0.025
|
0.05*(-1.89 to 0.01)
|
|
|
0.00*(-2.21 to -0.43)
|
|
|
39 - 48
|
51 (11.8)
|
0.94 (-1.39 to 1.49)
|
0.45 (-1.07 to 2.39)
|
0.23 (-2.08 to 0.50)
|
0.042
|
0.033
|
0.04*(-2.47 to -0.06)
|
|
|
49 - 58
|
54 (12.4)
|
0.74 (-1.17 to 1.64)
|
0.24 (-2.70 to 0.67)
|
0.03*(-2.61 to -0.08)
|
|
|
0.00*(-3.10 to -0.74)
|
|
|
59 - 68
|
24 (5.5)
|
0.04*(-4.06 to -0.13)
|
0.08 (-4.45 to 0.28)
|
0.00*(-4.88 to -1.34)
|
|
|
0.00*(-4.01 to -0.70)
|
|
|
Education level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High school
|
64 (14.75)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
College
|
174 (40.09)
|
0.876
|
0.875
|
0.001*(2.55 to 3.48)
|
0.502
|
0.489
|
0.006*(0.47 to 2.74)
|
0.312
|
0.307
|
0.001*(1.01 to 3.01)
|
0.236
|
0.231
|
0.001*(1.01 to 3.01)
|
|
|
Bachelor
|
116 (26.73)
|
0.001*(6.83 to 7.82)
|
0.001*(5.24 to 7.66)
|
0.001*(3.88 to 6.01)
|
0.001*(3.88 to 6.01)
|
|
|
Postgraduate
|
80 (18.43)
|
0.001*(12.6 to 13.7)
|
0.001*(9.87 to 12.5)
|
0.001*(5.82 to 8.13)
|
0.001*(5.82 to 8.13)
|
|
|
Nationality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peruvian
|
409 (94.2)
|
0.001
|
-0.001
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.007
|
0.005
|
Reference
|
|
|
Foreign
|
25 (5.8)
|
0.51(-1.24 to 2.50)
|
0.66 (-1.75 to 2.78)
|
0.67 (-1.34 to 2.06)
|
0.07 (-0.13 to 3.05
|
|
|
Work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
185 (42.6)
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Referencia
|
0.005
|
0.003
|
Referencia
|
|
|
Yes
|
249 (57.4)
|
0.93 (-0.84 to 0.92)
|
0.92 (-1.12 to 1.01)
|
0.91 (-0.85 to 0.76)
|
0.14 (-1.32 to 0.19)
|
|
|
Marital status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-habitant
|
19 (4.38)
|
0.004
|
-0.003
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Single
|
309 (71.20)
|
0.44 (-1.31 to 2.98)
|
|
|
0.97 (-2.64 to 2.54)
|
|
|
0.34 (-1.01 to 2.89)
|
|
|
0.80 (-2.07 to 1.60)
|
|
|
Married
|
98 (22.58)
|
0.77 (-1.94 to 2.61)
|
0.005
|
-0.003
|
0.76 (-2.32 to 3.18)
|
0.003
|
-0.004
|
0.46 (-1.28 to 2.85)
|
0.006
|
-0.001
|
0.70 (-2.32 to 1.56)
|
|
|
Widower
|
8 (1.84)
|
0.95 (-3.94 to 3.71)
|
|
|
|
0.33 (-6.90 to 2.35)
|
|
|
0.97 (-3.42 to 3.55)
|
|
|
0.12 (-5.61 to 0.92)
|
|
|
Fear of coronavirus (family)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
124 (28.57)
|
0.005
|
0.002
|
Reference
|
0.003
|
0.001
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.001
|
Reference
|
|
|
Yes
|
310 (71.43)
|
0.16 (-1.66 to 0.27)
|
0.27 (-1.81 to 0.51)
|
0.62 (-1.09 to 0.66)
|
0.53 (-1.09 to 0.56)
|
|
|
Product Concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little or nothing
|
211 (48.62)
|
0.009
|
0.004
|
Reference
|
0.004
|
-0.001
|
Reference
|
0.006
|
0.001
|
Reference
|
0.003
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
|
|
Moderated
|
207 (47.70)
|
0.05*(-1.77 to -0.001)
|
0.38 (-1.55 to 0.59)
|
0.21 (-1.32 to 0.29)
|
0.25 (-1.20 to 0.31)
|
|
|
Severe
|
16 (3.69)
|
0.77 (-2.69 to 2.004)
|
0.30 (-4.35 to 1.33)
|
0.22 (-3.47 to 0.81)
|
0.69 (-2.41 to 1.61)
|
|
|
Cause of concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children and family care
|
44 (10.14)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Domestic work
|
18 (4.15)
|
|
|
0.69 (-3.05 to 2.04)
|
|
|
0.38 (-1.69 to 4.45)
|
|
|
0.10 (-0.38 to 4.24)
|
|
|
0.72 (-1.77 to 2.58)
|
|
|
Social isolation
|
169 (38.94)
|
0.003
|
-0.009
|
0.82 (-1.73 to 1.36)
|
0.009
|
-0.003
|
0.60 (-1.31 to 2.41)
|
0.009
|
-0.003
|
0.48 (-0.89 to 1.90)
|
0.005
|
-0.006
|
0.49 (-0.85 to 1.78)
|
|
|
Not being able to work
|
121 (27.88)
|
|
|
0.73 (-1.88 to 1.32)
|
|
|
0.23 (-0.74 to 3.12)
|
|
|
0.84 (-1.31 to 1.60)
|
|
|
0.68 (-1.08 to 1.65)
|
|
|
Working without family
|
16 (3.69)
|
|
|
0.76 (-3.07 to 2.24)
|
|
|
0.86 (-3.48 to 2.93)
|
|
|
0.61 (-1.78 to 3.04)
|
|
|
0.99 (-2.27 to 2.26)
|
|
|
Teleworking
|
66 (15.21)
|
|
|
0.33 (-2.65 to 0.89)
|
|
|
0.91 (-2.27 to 2.01)
|
|
|
0.91 (-1.52 to 1.70)
|
|
|
0.68 (-1.83 to 1.19)
|
|
|
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
From the 450 respondents who completed the survey, only 434 (38.7% males and 61.3% females) were recruited into the study with a response rate of 100% (table 1). The mean age of participants was 33.87 ± 12.6, whose age range from 18 to 68 years old coming from 16 departments of Perú. The majority were well-educated (>=85.0 %), Peruvian (94.2%), employed (57.4%) and single (71.20 %).
Regarding social factors, a great number were afraid of contracting coronavirus (71.43%), 47.7% were worried about limited access to cleaning products, and 38.94% about social distancing, followed by 27.88% worried about not being able to work. Regarding employment, 42,6% were not working due to quarantine period, and 40.09% were university students.
3.3 General health status based on socio-economic profile (table 1)
The sample adjusts to a normal distribution (±1.5 threshold) (45) where 40.8% (n=177) of respondents reported psychological disorders in contrast to non-cases (59.2%), with a cut-off point of 23/24 (44).
Men have lower somatic and anxiety/insomnia symptom scores than women (β= -1.87; (β = -1.91) respectively. The 59-68 age group has fewer somatic symptoms than younger age groups (β = -2.09). Likewise, the 29 to 38 year old group scores (β= -1.46) less in anxiety / insomnia over the rest of the age groups. It is also observed that the groups from 49 to 58 years old (β= -1.35) and 59 to 68 years old (β= -3.11) score lower in social dysfunction than the younger age groups. With respect to severe depression, the 29 to 68 year-old groups present lower scores β = -1.26 to -2.36, with respect to the 18 to 28 year-old groups. When observing study levels, participants who have graduate (β= 13.16), undergraduate (β= 7.32) and university (β= 3.02) degrees present higher somatic symptoms than those who have high school. Similar tendency is presented in the anxiety / insomnia scales; graduate (β= 13.18), undergraduate (β= 6.45) and college (β= 1.61); in the social dysfunction scale: graduate (β= 6.98), undergraduate (β= 4.94) and college (β= 2.01); also in severe depression: graduate (β= 4.84), undergraduate (β= 3.02) and college (β= 0.16). Likewise, there are lower somatic symptoms (β= -0.89), in participants who have moderate concern for the absence of hygiene products (protection, antibacterial gel, chinstraps and others) than those who do not worry about them.
3.3 Association between sociodemographic variables and subscales of active and passive coping strategies toward the COVID-19 (table 2-3-4)
Tabla 2. Descriptive analysis of the subscales of the Active and Passive Coping strategies
Active coping
|
M
|
Mdn
|
Mo
|
DE
|
Min
|
Max
|
Q1
|
Q3
|
CI(95%)
|
Active
|
3.77
|
4.00
|
4
|
1.45
|
0
|
6
|
3
|
5
|
(3.63, 3.91)
|
Planning
|
3.75
|
4.00
|
4
|
1.54
|
0
|
6
|
3
|
5
|
(3.61, 3.90)
|
Emotional support
|
2.66
|
2.50
|
2
|
1.63
|
0
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
(2.50, 2.82)
|
Social Support
|
2.63
|
3.00
|
2
|
1.56
|
0
|
6
|
2
|
4
|
(2.48, 2.77)
|
Positive re-evaluation
|
3.62
|
4.00
|
4
|
1.53
|
0
|
6
|
3
|
5
|
(3.48, 3.76)
|
Acceptance
|
4.18
|
4.00
|
4
|
1.39
|
0
|
6
|
3
|
5
|
(4.05, 4.31)
|
Humor
|
2.50
|
2.00
|
2
|
1.81
|
0
|
6
|
1
|
2
|
(2.32, 2.67)
|
Pasive coping
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Religion
|
2.83
|
3.00
|
2
|
1.87
|
0
|
6
|
1
|
4
|
(2.65, 3.01)
|
Denial
|
1.36
|
1.00
|
0
|
1.49
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
2
|
(1.22, 1.50)
|
Self-Distraction
|
3.39
|
4.00
|
4
|
1.61
|
0
|
6
|
2
|
5
|
(3.24, 3.54)
|
Self-incrimination
|
1.93
|
2.00
|
2
|
1.43
|
0
|
6
|
1
|
3
|
(1.79, 2.08)
|
Disconnection
|
1.29
|
1.00
|
0
|
1.28
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
2
|
(1.17, 1.41)
|
Desahogo
|
2.01
|
2.00
|
2
|
1.34
|
0
|
6
|
1
|
3
|
(1.88, 2.13)
|
Substance use
|
.66
|
0.00
|
0
|
1.21
|
0
|
6
|
0
|
1
|
(0.55, 0.78)
|
Men are less likely than women to use the positive re-evaluation coping strategy (β= -0.33). The 59-68 age group is identified as using less of the planning (β= -0.81), positive reassessment (β= -1.14), and acceptance (β= -0.96) coping strategies than the younger age group, similarly in the 39-48 age group (β= -0.58) and the 49-58 age group (β= -0.99), who are also less likely to use positive reassessment strategy (β= -0.66) and acceptance strategies (β= -0.57). Looking at the level of study, participants with postgraduate degrees (β= -0.53) and bachelor's degrees (β= -0.65) use the planning strategy less than participants with high school education, while participants with college education use positive re-evaluation (β= 0.62) compared to those with high school education. We found that married participants use the planning coping strategy (β= -0.79) and positive re-evaluation (β= -0.87) less than singles and cohabitants. It is evident that those who score moderate concern for the absence of hygiene products (protection, antibacterial gel, chinstraps and others), are those most unlikely to use the positive re-evaluation strategies (β= -0.41) (see table 3).
Table 3. Association between sociodemographic variables and subscales of active coping strategies in covid-19
Variables
|
N(%)
|
Active
|
Planning
|
Positive re-framing
|
Aceptance
|
|
R-Squared
|
Adjusted R-Squared
|
p (95% Confidence Interval)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
|
|
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Man
|
168 (38.7)
|
0.006
|
0.004
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.011
|
0.001
|
Reference
|
0.008
|
0.006
|
Reference
|
|
|
Woman
|
266 (61.3)
|
0.11(-0.51 to 0.05)
|
0.73 (-0.25 to 0.35)
|
0.03*(-0.63 to -0.04)
|
0.06 (-0.53 to 0.01)
|
|
|
Age (years)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 - 28
|
181 (41.7)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
29 - 38
|
124 (28.6)
|
0.009
|
-0.000
|
0.70 (-0.40 to 0.27)
|
0.026
|
0.017
|
0.51 (-0.23 to 0.47)
|
0.063
|
0.054
|
0.23 (-0.55 to 0.13)
|
|
|
0.06 (-0.62 to 0.01)
|
|
|
39 - 48
|
51 (11.8)
|
0.97 (-0.44 to 0.46)
|
0.19 (-0.79 to 0.16)
|
0.01*(-1.05 to -0.12)
|
0.043
|
0.034
|
0.002*(-1.09 to -0.23)
|
|
|
49 - 58
|
54 (12.4)
|
0.09 (-0.82 to 0.07)
|
0.10 (-0.85 to 0.08)
|
0.001*(-1.44 to -0.53)
|
|
0.01*(-0.99 to -0.16)
|
|
|
59 - 68
|
24 (5.5)
|
0.26 (-0.97 to 0.26)
|
0.02*(-1.46 to -0.16)
|
0.001*(-1.78 to -0.51)
|
|
0.002*(-1.50 to -0.34)
|
|
|
Education level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High school
|
64 (14.75)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
College
|
174 (40.09)
|
0.008
|
0.002
|
0.06 (-0.01 to 0.82)
|
0.020
|
0.013
|
0.15 (-0.76 to 0.12)
|
0.027
|
0.020
|
0.01*(0.18 to 1.05)
|
0.013
|
0.006
|
0.80 (-0.35 to 0.45)
|
|
|
Bachelor
|
116 (26.73)
|
0.27 (-0.19 to 0.69)
|
0.01*(-1.13 to -0.18)
|
0.63 (-0.35 to 0.58)
|
0.48 (-0.58 to 0.27)
|
|
|
Postgrade
|
80 (18.43)
|
0.19 (-0.16 to 0.79)
|
0.04*(-1.04 to -0.03)
|
0.11 (-0.09 to 0.91)
|
0.12 (-0.82 to 0.09)
|
|
|
Nationality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peruvian
|
409 (94.2)
|
0.003
|
|
Reference
|
0.005
|
0.003
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.002
|
-0.000
|
Reference
|
|
|
Foreign
|
25 (5.8)
|
0.001
|
0.24 (-0.94 to 0.23)
|
0.15 (-1.08 to 0.16)
|
0.74 (-0.72 to 0.52)
|
0.34 (-0.84 to 0.29)
|
|
|
Work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
185 (42.6)
|
0.002
|
-0.000
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.001
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.001
|
Reference
|
0.003
|
0.000
|
Reference
|
|
|
Yes
|
249 (57.4)
|
0.34 (-0.41 to 0.14)
|
0.55 (-0.38 to 0.20)
|
0.51 (-0.38 to 0.19)
|
0.29 (-0.41 to 0.12)
|
|
|
Marital status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-habitant
|
19 (4.38)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Single
|
309 (71.20)
|
0.011
|
0.003
|
0.31 (-1.02 to 0.32)
|
0.012
|
0.005
|
0.16 (-1.23 to 0.19)
|
0.016
|
0.009
|
0.09 (-1.31 to 0.11)
|
0.014
|
0.007
|
0.47 (-0.88 to 0.40)
|
|
|
Married
|
98 (22.58)
|
0.16 (-1.23 to 0.19)
|
0.04*(-1.55 to -0.04)
|
0.02* (-1.63 to -0.12)
|
0.09 (-1.25 to 0.11)
|
|
|
Widower
|
8 (1.84)
|
0.06 (-2.35 to 0.04)
|
0.21 (-2.09 to 0.46)
|
0.07 (-2.40 to 0.13)
|
0.80 (-0.99 to 1.30)
|
|
|
Fear of coronavirus disease (family)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
124 (28.57)
|
0.003
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
|
|
Yes
|
310 (71.43)
|
0.73 (-0.25 to 0.36)
|
0.76 (-0.27 to 0.37)
|
0.99 (-0.32 to 0.32)
|
0.76 (-0.25 to 0.34)
|
|
|
Product Concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little or nothing
|
211 (48.62)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Moderate
|
207 (47.70)
|
0.007
|
0.002
|
0.15 (-0.48 to 0.07)
|
0.006
|
0.001
|
0.30 (-0.45 to 0.14)
|
0.020
|
0.016
|
0.01*(-0.70 to -0.12)
|
0.012
|
0.007
|
0.05 (-0.53 to 0.001)
|
|
|
Severe
|
16 (3.69)
|
0.23 (-1.19 to 0.29)
|
0.18 (-1.32 to 0.25)
|
0.09 (-1.43 to 0.12)
|
0.45 (-0.44 to 0.97)
|
|
|
Causes of concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children and family care
|
44 (10.14)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Domestic work
|
18 (4.15)
|
0.017
|
0.006
|
0.51 (-0.53 to 1.06)
|
0.017
|
0.006
|
0.81 (-0.95 to 0.74)
|
0.011
|
-0.001
|
0.68 (-0.67 to 1.01)
|
0.194
|
0.008
|
0.08 (-0.08 to 1.43)
|
|
|
Social isolation
|
169 (38.94)
|
1.09 (-0.80 to 0.16)
|
0.43 (-0.31 to 0.72)
|
0.60 (-0.64 to 0.37)
|
0.30 (-0.22 to 0.69)
|
|
|
Not being able to work
|
121 (27.88)
|
0.11 (-0.91 to 0.09)
|
0.81 (-0.59 to 0.47)
|
0.30 (-0.80 to 0.25)
|
0.69 (-0.38 to 0.57)
|
|
|
Working without family
|
16 (3.69)
|
0.05 (-1.65 to 0.01)
|
0.24 (-1.42 to 0.35)
|
0.11 (-1.58 to 0.16)
|
0.17 (-1.34 to 0.24)
|
|
|
Teleworking
|
66 (15.21)
|
0.37 (-0.80 to 0.30)
|
0.22 (-0.22 to 0.96)
|
0.91 (-0.61 to 0.55)
|
0.91 (-0.49 to 0.56)
|
|
|
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
When it comes to passive coping strategies, men are less likely to use religion (β= -0.84), self-distraction (β= -0.33), and venting (β= -0.35) as a coping response compared to women. The 39-48 age group uses more religion-base responses (β= 0.74) than younger age groups, and self-disruptive behavior occurs less in most age ranges (β= -0.54 in the 29-38 age group; β= -0. 64 in the 39-48 age group; β= -1.09 in the 49-58 age group and β= -1.42 in the 59-68 age group), in a similar manner in the self-incrimination strategy (β= -0.37 in the 29-38 age group; β= -0.50 in the 39-48 age group and β= -0.80 in the 49-58 age group). The older group (59 to 68 years old) uses the relief strategy to a lesser extent compared to the younger groups. It should be noted that college students use more religion-based (β= 0.61) and relief (β= 0.50) coping strategies, while those with a bachelor's degree use self-blaming (β= 0.64), a comparable finding in more highly educated individuals: professionals with graduate degrees who use self-distraction (β= 0.76), self-blame (β= 1.07), and relief (β= 0.88) as passive coping strategies compared to participants with just a high school education (table 4). Furthermore, visual descriptive for active and passive coping strategies (figure 1).
Table 4. Association between sociodemographic variables and subscales of passive coping during COVID-19
Variables
|
N(%)
|
Religion
|
Self-distraction
|
Self-incrimination
|
Desahogo
|
|
R-Squared
|
Adjusted R-Squared
|
p (95% Confidence Interval)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
|
|
|
R2
|
(AR2)
|
p(95% CI)
|
|
|
Gender
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Men
|
168 (38.7)
|
0.049
|
0.047
|
Reference
|
0.010
|
0.008
|
Reference
|
0.007
|
0.004
|
Reference
|
0.016
|
0.014
|
Reference
|
|
|
Women
|
266 (61.3)
|
0.001*(-1.20 to -0.49)
|
0.03*(-0.64 a -0.02)
|
0.09 (-0.04 to 0.51)
|
0.01*(-0.60 to -0.09)
|
|
|
Age (year)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
18 - 28
|
181 (41.7)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
29 - 38
|
124 (28.6)
|
0.021
|
0.012
|
0.57 (-0.30 to 0.54)
|
0.075
|
0.066
|
0.003*(-0.90 to -0.18)
|
0.038
|
0.029
|
0.02*(-0.69 to -0.05)
|
0.015
|
0.006
|
0.12 (-0.54 to 0.06)
|
|
|
39 - 48
|
51 (11.8)
|
0.01*(0.16 to 1.31)
|
0.01*(-1.12 to -0.15)
|
0.02*(-0.93 to -0.06)
|
0.33 (-0.62 to 0.21)
|
|
|
49 - 58
|
54 (12.4)
|
0.13 (-0.12 to 1.01)
|
0.001*(-1.56 to -0.61)
|
0.001*(-1.22 to -0.37)
|
0.25 (-0.64 to 0.16)
|
|
|
59 - 68
|
24 (5.5)
|
0.07 (-0.07 to 1.51)
|
0.001*(-2.08 to -0.75)
|
0.09 (-1.11 to 0.08)
|
0.02*(-1.23 to -0.09)
|
|
|
Educational level
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High school
|
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
College
|
174 (40.09)
|
0.012
|
0.005
|
0.03*(0.07 to 1.14)
|
0.025
|
0.018
|
0.58 (-0.33 to 0.58)
|
0.063
|
0.056
|
0.24 (-0.16 to 0.63)
|
0.038
|
0.031
|
0.01*(0.12 to 0.88)
|
|
|
Bachelor
|
116 (26.73)
|
0.06 (-0.02 to 1.11)
|
0.18 (-0.15 to 0.81)
|
0.003*(0.21 to 1.06)
|
0.002*(0.24 to 1.05)
|
|
|
Posgrade
|
80 (18.43)
|
0.09 (-0.09 to 1.13)
|
0.004*(0.23 to 1.29)
|
0.001*(0.61 to 1.52)
|
0.001*(0.44 to 1.31)
|
|
|
Nationality
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Peruvian
|
409 (94.2)
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.004
|
0.001
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
|
|
Foreigner(living in Peru)
|
25 (5.8)
|
0.93 (-0.78 to 0.72)
|
0.82 (-0.72 to 0.57)
|
0.21 (-0.21 to 0.94)
|
0.97 (-0.55 to 0.54)
|
|
|
Work
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
185 (42.6)
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.001
|
Reference
|
0.001
|
-0.001
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
|
|
Yes
|
249 (57.4)
|
0.81 (-0.31 to 0.39)
|
0.51 (-0.41 to 0.20)
|
0.48 (-0.37 to 0.17)
|
0.90 (-0.27 to 0.23)
|
|
|
Marital status
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Co-habitant
|
19 (4.38)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Single
|
309 (71.20)
|
0.008
|
0.001
|
0.74 (-0.72 to 1.01)
|
0.004
|
-0.003
|
0.38 (-1.08 to 0.42)
|
0.009
|
0.002
|
0.26 (-0.28 to 1.03)
|
0.011
|
0.004
|
0.94 (-0.59 to 0.64)
|
|
|
Married
|
98 (22.58)
|
0.59 (-1.16 to 0.67)
|
0.27 (-1.23 to 0.35)
|
0.24 (-0.28 to 1.12)
|
0.37 (-0.95 to 0.36)
|
|
|
Widower
|
8 (1.84)
|
0.71 (-1.83 to 1.25)
|
0.27 (-2.07 to 0.60)
|
0.45 (-1.63 to 0.72)
|
0.56 (-0.78 to 1.42)
|
|
|
Fear of contracting coronavirus (or family member)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No
|
124 (28.57)
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.003
|
0.000
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
0.000
|
-0.002
|
Reference
|
|
|
Sí
|
310 (71.43)
|
0.78 (-0.33 to 0.44)
|
0.25 (-0.14 to 0.53)
|
0.92 (-0.31 to 0.28)
|
0.88 (-0.25 to 0.30)
|
|
|
Fear of products
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Little or nothing
|
211 (48.62)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Moderate
|
207 (47.70)
|
0.002
|
-0.002
|
0.64 (-0.44 to 0.27)
|
0.004
|
-0.000
|
0.42 (-0.43 to 0.18)
|
0.003
|
-0.002
|
0.55 (-0.35 to 0.19)
|
0.009
|
0.004
|
0.10 (-0.47 to 0.04)
|
|
|
Severe
|
16 (3.69)
|
0.35 (-1.40 to 0.50)
|
0.20 (-1.35 to 0.28)
|
0.33 (-1.08 to 0.36)
|
0.14 (-1.18 to 0.17)
|
|
|
Causes of concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Children and family care
|
44 (10.14)
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Reference
|
|
|
Domestic work
|
18 (4.15)
|
0.009
|
-0.002
|
0.56 (-1.33 to 0.72)
|
0.007
|
-0.004
|
0.94 (-0.85 to 0.92)
|
0.008
|
-0.003
|
0.29 (-1.21 to 0.36)
|
0.014
|
0.002
|
0.51 (-0.97 to 0.49)
|
|
|
Social isolation
|
169 (38.94)
|
0.28 (-0.94 to 0.28)
|
0.87 (-0.58 to 0.49)
|
0.98 (-0.47 to 0.48)
|
0.74 (-0.37 to 0.51)
|
|
|
Not being able to work
|
121 (27.88)
|
0.12 (-1.16 to 0.13)
|
0.34 (-0.82 to 0.29)
|
0.73 (-0.57 to 0.41)
|
0.59 (-0.33 to 0.58)
|
|
|
Working without family
|
16 (3.69)
|
0.74 (-0.89 to 1.25)
|
0.21 (-1.51 to 0.34)
|
0.25 (-1.29 to 0.34)
|
0.37 (-1.11 to 0.42)
|
|
|
Teleworking
|
66 (15.21)
|
0.64 (-0.88 to 0.54)
|
0.64 (-0.76 to 0.47)
|
0.76 (-0.46 to 0.63)
|
0.15 (-0.13 to 0.88)
|
|
|
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.
3.4 Pearson's correlations between general health and coping strategies scale (table 5)
Table 5. Pearson's correlations for General Health indicators (GHQ)and active and passive coping strategies (COPE)
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
4
|
5
|
6
|
7
|
8
|
9
|
10
|
11
|
12
|
13
|
14
|
15
|
16
|
17
|
18
|
1. Somatic symptoms
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2. Anxiety/insomnia
|
.69**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
3. Social Dysfunction
|
.55**
|
.56**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
4. Severe depression
|
.49**
|
.54**
|
.50**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
5. Active
|
.03
|
.03
|
.02
|
-.12*
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
6. Planning
|
-.08
|
-.06
|
-.02
|
-.19**
|
.66**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
7. Emotional Support
|
.20**
|
.13**
|
.15**
|
.01
|
.32**
|
.28**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
8. Social Support
|
.12*
|
.16**
|
.13**
|
.02
|
.34**
|
.38**
|
.54**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9. Positive re-refraiming
|
-.02
|
.01
|
.05
|
-.10
|
.54**
|
.51**
|
.33**
|
.29**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
10. Acceptance
|
-.10*
|
-.10*
|
.02
|
-.11*
|
.52**
|
.53**
|
.15**
|
.28**
|
.56**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
11. Humor
|
.05
|
-.01
|
.09
|
.04
|
.27**
|
.36**
|
.17**
|
.29**
|
.34**
|
.38**
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
12. Religion
|
.04
|
.05
|
.03
|
-.10
|
.35**
|
.34**
|
.39**
|
.32**
|
.34**
|
.29**
|
0
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
13. Denial
|
.21**
|
.23**
|
.17**
|
.18**
|
-.07
|
.04
|
.16**
|
.26**
|
-.14**
|
-.10*
|
.10*
|
.12*
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
|
14. Self-distraction
|
.15**
|
.27**
|
.26**
|
.15**
|
.43**
|
.48**
|
.29**
|
.39**
|
.50**
|
.45**
|
.34**
|
.31**
|
.04
|
1
|
|
|
|
|
15. Self-incrimination
|
.23**
|
.26**
|
.29**
|
.41**
|
.21**
|
.18**
|
.17**
|
.24**
|
.16**
|
.10*
|
.35**
|
.02
|
.22**
|
.32**
|
1
|
|
|
|
16. Disconnection
|
.23**
|
.23**
|
.36**
|
.36**
|
-.05
|
-.04
|
.18**
|
.09
|
.05
|
-.04
|
.16**
|
.05
|
.23**
|
.12*
|
.33**
|
1
|
|
|
17. Relief
|
.16**
|
.15**
|
.20**
|
.19**
|
.32**
|
.29**
|
.32**
|
.32**
|
.25**
|
.20**
|
.28**
|
.19**
|
.14**
|
.34**
|
.38**
|
.22**
|
1
|
|
18. Substance use
|
.20**
|
.15**
|
.20**
|
.21**
|
-.07
|
-.11*
|
.09
|
.06
|
-.15**
|
-.08
|
.12*
|
.01
|
.32**
|
.01
|
.22**
|
.19**
|
.15**
|
1
|
* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01.
It is noticeable that health indicators are associated with individual reactions. In fact, table 5 describes that emotional support strategy correlates significantly positive with somatic symptoms (r = 0.20**), anxiety/insomnia (r = 0.13**) and social dysfunction (r = 0.15**). The planning strategy correlates inversely with severe depression (r = -0.19**). It is clear that the lesser the social support response, the greater the anxiety/insomnia index (r = 0.16**) and social dysfunction (r = 0.13**). The situation-acceptance strategy is a protective factor against indicators of somatic symptoms, anxiety/insomnia and severe depression (*p < 0.05). It is also evident that the active strategies of positive re-framing and humor do not correlate with any indicator measured with the general health scale (GHQ). On the contrary, passive coping styles (denial, self-distraction, self-incrimination, disconnection, venting and substance use) correlate direct and significantly with general health status (somatic symptoms, anxiety/insomnia, social dysfunction and severe depression), the only passive coping strategy that does not correlate with overall health indicators is religion.
3.5 Path analysis results related to active and passive coping strategies (Figure 2)
Results derived from standardized path analysis coefficients shows active and passive responses. As such, social acceptance and support-seeking behaviors are active strategies more likely to be used by individuals who rated with psychological problems. The model retrieved acceptable goodness-of-fit indexes ( X2/gl = 3.096; GFI = 0.880; IFC = 0.851 and RMSEA = 0.109 (IC90% 0.089, 0. 129); Although it is a model that does not strictly meet the expected parameters, the values are close and indicate that the active strategies used by participants with psychological problems are acceptance (negative), social support (positive); the passive strategies such as denial (positive way), self-distraction (positive), self-incrimination (positive), disconnection (positive) and relief (negative). Except humor (active strategy) and substance use (passive strategy) that do not support the explanation. The model explains 19% of the variability (R2 = 0.19) on the impact of the active and passive coping strategies among patients with psychological problems, with adequate adjustment index. The strategies that do not support the model are humor (active strategy) and substance use (passive strategy).
On the contrary Figure 3 describes coefficients for active and passive strategies for participants who reported absence of psychological problems. The model has acceptable goodness-of-fit indices (X2/gl = 5.739; GFI = 0.869; IFC = 0.751 and RMSEA = 0.119 / IC90% 0.098, 0. 139), although it is a model that does not strictly comply with the expected parameters, the values are close and indicate that active strategies among participants without psychological problems are emotional support (positive), planning (positive); In particular, the passive strategies people without mental illness reported are: self-distraction (positive), self-blame (positive), disconnection (positive), for other hand active strategies that do not support the model are (humor and social support). This model (R2 = 0. 21) explain 21% of the variance, that is that 21% of the participants who do not present psychological problems use the aforementioned coping strategies, with adequate adjustment indexes.