流行病应对项目:应对隔离策略的随机临床试验。

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q2 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Jeffrey S Berman, Rivian K Lewin, Erin M Solomon, Olivia G Glasgow, Rachel L Pace, Andrew N Snell
{"title":"流行病应对项目:应对隔离策略的随机临床试验。","authors":"Jeffrey S Berman, Rivian K Lewin, Erin M Solomon, Olivia G Glasgow, Rachel L Pace, Andrew N Snell","doi":"10.1080/13548506.2025.2490228","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Past research has suggested that isolation is associated with poorer psychological well-being, an issue of particular importance given the quarantines imposed during the recent coronavirus pandemic. The aim of the present randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies for coping with loneliness and distress during isolation. In the online study, participants (<i>N</i> = 330) from a nationwide and international sample were randomly assigned to practice one of six strategies (i.e. social support, prosocial behavior, structure, distraction, exercise, using helpful resources) or to a comparison group. They completed measures of psychological distress and loneliness at baseline and after one and two weeks assigned to their strategy for coping. Results revealed that a strategy of structuring daily activities was more effective at reducing distress than the other coping strategies. Younger and middle-aged participants experienced less distress using structure than other strategies, but there was no difference in distress based on extraversion or personal need for structure. For loneliness, results depended on personal need for structure such that those with average or higher need for structure experienced less loneliness when using the structure strategy. Neither age nor extraversion was a significant factor in the impact of structure on loneliness. Structuring daily activities appears to be superior to other strategies for coping during isolation, except for older individuals and those with lower need for structure, who may benefit from other strategies. Based on the study findings, providers should consider a recommendation of structuring daily activities as a way of managing distress and loneliness during social isolation.</p>","PeriodicalId":54535,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Health & Medicine","volume":" ","pages":"1-19"},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The pandemic coping project: a randomized clinical trial of strategies for coping with isolation.\",\"authors\":\"Jeffrey S Berman, Rivian K Lewin, Erin M Solomon, Olivia G Glasgow, Rachel L Pace, Andrew N Snell\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/13548506.2025.2490228\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Past research has suggested that isolation is associated with poorer psychological well-being, an issue of particular importance given the quarantines imposed during the recent coronavirus pandemic. The aim of the present randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies for coping with loneliness and distress during isolation. In the online study, participants (<i>N</i> = 330) from a nationwide and international sample were randomly assigned to practice one of six strategies (i.e. social support, prosocial behavior, structure, distraction, exercise, using helpful resources) or to a comparison group. They completed measures of psychological distress and loneliness at baseline and after one and two weeks assigned to their strategy for coping. Results revealed that a strategy of structuring daily activities was more effective at reducing distress than the other coping strategies. Younger and middle-aged participants experienced less distress using structure than other strategies, but there was no difference in distress based on extraversion or personal need for structure. For loneliness, results depended on personal need for structure such that those with average or higher need for structure experienced less loneliness when using the structure strategy. Neither age nor extraversion was a significant factor in the impact of structure on loneliness. Structuring daily activities appears to be superior to other strategies for coping during isolation, except for older individuals and those with lower need for structure, who may benefit from other strategies. Based on the study findings, providers should consider a recommendation of structuring daily activities as a way of managing distress and loneliness during social isolation.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":54535,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Health & Medicine\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1-19\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-04-12\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Health & Medicine\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2025.2490228\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Health & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2025.2490228","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

过去的研究表明,隔离与较差的心理健康有关,鉴于最近冠状病毒大流行期间实施的隔离,这一问题尤为重要。本随机临床试验的目的是评估在隔离期间应对孤独和痛苦的不同策略的有效性。在在线研究中,来自全国和国际样本的参与者(N = 330)被随机分配到六种策略中的一种(即社会支持、亲社会行为、结构、分散注意力、锻炼、使用有用资源)或对照组。他们在基线时完成了心理困扰和孤独感的测量,并在一周和两周后分配了他们的应对策略。结果显示,组织日常活动的策略在减少痛苦方面比其他应对策略更有效。年轻和中年的参与者在使用结构策略时感受到的痛苦比其他策略少,但在外倾性和个人对结构的需求上没有差异。对于孤独感,结果依赖于个人对结构的需求,即结构需求一般或较高的人在使用结构策略时感受到的孤独感较少。在结构对孤独感的影响中,年龄和外向性都不是显著因素。在隔离期间,组织日常活动似乎优于其他应对策略,但老年人和结构需求较低的人可能受益于其他策略。根据研究结果,提供者应考虑一项建议,即组织日常活动,作为在社会隔离期间管理痛苦和孤独的一种方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
The pandemic coping project: a randomized clinical trial of strategies for coping with isolation.

Past research has suggested that isolation is associated with poorer psychological well-being, an issue of particular importance given the quarantines imposed during the recent coronavirus pandemic. The aim of the present randomized clinical trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of different strategies for coping with loneliness and distress during isolation. In the online study, participants (N = 330) from a nationwide and international sample were randomly assigned to practice one of six strategies (i.e. social support, prosocial behavior, structure, distraction, exercise, using helpful resources) or to a comparison group. They completed measures of psychological distress and loneliness at baseline and after one and two weeks assigned to their strategy for coping. Results revealed that a strategy of structuring daily activities was more effective at reducing distress than the other coping strategies. Younger and middle-aged participants experienced less distress using structure than other strategies, but there was no difference in distress based on extraversion or personal need for structure. For loneliness, results depended on personal need for structure such that those with average or higher need for structure experienced less loneliness when using the structure strategy. Neither age nor extraversion was a significant factor in the impact of structure on loneliness. Structuring daily activities appears to be superior to other strategies for coping during isolation, except for older individuals and those with lower need for structure, who may benefit from other strategies. Based on the study findings, providers should consider a recommendation of structuring daily activities as a way of managing distress and loneliness during social isolation.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Psychology Health & Medicine
Psychology Health & Medicine PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH-
CiteScore
6.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
200
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Psychology, Health & Medicine is a multidisciplinary journal highlighting human factors in health. The journal provides a peer reviewed forum to report on issues of psychology and health in practice. This key publication reaches an international audience, highlighting the variation and similarities within different settings and exploring multiple health and illness issues from theoretical, practical and management perspectives. It provides a critical forum to examine the wide range of applied health and illness issues and how they incorporate psychological knowledge, understanding, theory and intervention. The journal reflects the growing recognition of psychosocial issues as they affect health planning, medical care, disease reaction, intervention, quality of life, adjustment adaptation and management. For many years theoretical research was very distant from applied understanding. The emerging movement in health psychology, changes in medical care provision and training, and consumer awareness of health issues all contribute to a growing need for applied research. This journal focuses on practical applications of theory, research and experience and provides a bridge between academic knowledge, illness experience, wellbeing and health care practice.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信