The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
As of 1 July 2024, you may notice a temporary increase in the numbers of X profiles with Unknown location. Click here to learn more.
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output.
Click here to find out more.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
Attention Score in Context
| Title |
The Predictive Value of Dyadic Coping in the Explanation of PTSD Symptoms and Subjective Well-Being of Work Accident Victims
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Frontiers in Psychology, September 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01664 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Susana Lameiras, Alexandra Marques-Pinto, Rita Francisco, Susana Costa-Ramalho, Maria Teresa Ribeiro |
| Abstract |
Objective: Work accidents may be considered dyadic stressors in so far as they not only affect the worker, but also the couple's relationship. Dyadic coping, as the process by which couples manage the stress experienced by each partner, can strengthen individual health and well-being as well as couple relationship functioning. Accidents at work have progressively been studied from a perspective that focuses on their negative effects on PTSS, anxiety, and depression. However, to a large extent, the dyadic coping processes and results following a work accident are still to be identified and clarified. In this study, we examined the predictive value of dyadic coping in the explanation of PTSS and subjective well-being of work accident victims. Method: This study comprised a sample of 62 individuals involved in work accidents within the last 24 months (61.3% males) and their partners (N = 124; M = 46.25 years, SD = 11.18). All participants responded to the Dyadic Coping Inventory and the work accident victims also answered the PTSD Checklist - Civilian (PCL-C) and the Mental Health Continuum - Short Form (MHC-SF). Two hierarchical multiple regression analyses were performed using two different variable set models: Model 1 comprised the control variables gender and age, and Model 2 included the workers' and the partners' dyadic coping variables. Results: Results showed that dyadic coping reported by both workers and their respective partners (Model 2) was a significant predictor of workers' PTSS (p < 0.01) and subjective well-being (p < 0.001), explaining 31.2% of the variance in PCL-C and 68.7% in MHC-SF results. More specifically, the partners' supportive dyadic coping (by the self) and delegated dyadic coping (by the partner) were significant predictors of the workers' lower PTSS and virtually all the dyadic copying strategies of both the workers' and their partners' were significant predictors of the workers' higher subjective well-being. Conclusion: Dyadic coping of both the workers and their partners predicts the workers' PTSS and subjective well-being. These findings point to the need to work with couples who have experienced a work accident, with a view to improving the workers' mental health outcomes. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| India | 2 | 67% |
| Switzerland | 1 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 39 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 39 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 5 | 13% |
| Researcher | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Lecturer | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 2 | 5% |
| Unknown | 18 | 46% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 13 | 33% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 4 | 10% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 1 | 3% |
| Social Sciences | 1 | 3% |
| Neuroscience | 1 | 3% |
| Other | 0 | 0% |
| Unknown | 19 | 49% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 07 September 2018.
All research outputs
#15,544,609
of 23,102,082 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#19,084
of 30,507 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#212,603
of 336,158 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#524
of 736 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,102,082 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 22nd percentile – i.e., 22% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 30,507 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.5. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 336,158 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 28th percentile – i.e., 28% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 736 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 24th percentile – i.e., 24% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.