Evangelische Hochschule Nürnberg
Filtern
Dokumenttyp
- Aufsatz (3) (entfernen)
Sprache
- Englisch (3)
Volltext vorhanden
- nein (3) (entfernen)
Schlagworte
- Stress (3)
- Studie (3)
- Bewältigung (1)
- COVID-19 (1)
- Gesundheitsförderung (1)
- Smartphone (1)
- TrackYourStress (1)
The aim of this study was to investigate the impact of different coping styles on situational coping in everyday life situations and gender differences. An ecological momentary assessment study with the mobile health app TrackYourStress was conducted with 113 participants. The coping styles Positive Thinking, Active Stress Coping, Social Support, Support in Faith, and Alcohol and Cigarette Consumption of the Stress and Coping Inventory were measured at baseline. Situational coping was assessed by the question “How well can you cope with your momentary stress level” over 4 weeks. Multilevel models were conducted to test the effects of the coping styles on situational coping. Additionally, gender differences were evaluated. Positive Thinking (p = 0.03) and Active Stress Coping (p = 0.04) had significant positive impacts on situational coping in the total sample. For women, Social Support had a significant positive effect on situational coping (p = 0.046). For men, Active Stress Coping had a significant positive effect on situational coping (p = 0.001). Women had higher scores on the SCI scale Social Support than men (p = 0.007). These results suggest that different coping styles could be more effective in daily life for women than for men. Taking this into account, interventions tailored to users’ coping styles might lead to better coping outcomes than generalized interventions.
A longitudinal pilot study on stress-levels in the crowdsensing mHealth platform TrackYourStress
(2019)
Background: The mobile phone app, TrackYourStress (TYS), is a new crowdsensing mobile health platform for ecological momentary assessments of perceived stress levels.
Objective: In this pilot study, we aimed to investigate the time trend of stress levels while using TYS for the entire population being studied and whether the individuals’ perceived stress reactivity moderates stress level changes while using TYS.
Methods: Using TYS, stress levels were measured repeatedly with the 4-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-4), and perceived stress reactivity was measured once with the Perceived Stress Reactivity Scale (PSRS). A total of 78 nonclinical participants, who provided 1 PSRS assessment and at least 4 repeated PSS-4 measurements, were included in this pilot study. Linear multilevel models were used to analyze the time trend of stress levels and interactions with perceived stress reactivity.
Results: Across the whole sample, stress levels did not change while using TYS (P=.83). Except for one subscale of the PSRS, interindividual differences in perceived stress reactivity did not influence the trajectories of stress levels. However, participants with higher scores on the PSRS subscale reactivity to failure showed a stronger increase of stress levels while using TYS than participants with lower scores (P=.04).
Conclusions: TYS tracks the stress levels in daily life, and most of the results showed that stress levels do not change while using TYS. Controlled trials are necessary to evaluate whether it is specifically TYS or any other influence that worsens the stress levels of participants with higher reactivity to failure.