ABSTRACT
Objective@#Coping can be defined as the reactions to harm or distress individuals take to reduce stress. This study aimed to determine how an individual’s temperament and character is correlated with the person’s main coping method. @*Methods@#The Korean version of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire and Temperament and Character Inventory-Revised-Short Version were used to evaluate the coping strategies and temperament and character of 1,035 people. Four hierarchical linear regression analyses with the scores of each coping strategy subscale as a dependent variable were performed. @*Results@#High persistence, cooperativeness, self-transcendence, and low harm avoidance were associated with using a problem-focused coping strategy. Being female, high novelty seeking, reward dependence, and self-transcendence were associated with using a supportseeking coping strategy. High novelty seeking, self-transcendence, and low self-directedness were associated with using emotion-focused coping strategy. Being female, high novelty seeking, persistence, cooperativeness, and self-transcendence were associated with using a hopeful-thinking coping strategy. @*Conclusion@#Our results show that there may be specific personality features guiding what kind of coping strategy an individual might use in a given situation.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Non-adherence and comorbidities are prevalent among hemodialysis patients and are associated with increased mortality and financial burden. We aimed to investigate the influence of major coping strategies (CSs) on non-adherence and comorbidities in hemodialysis patients. METHODS: A total of 49 patients were enrolled. We collected participant data including CS measured by a Korean version of the ways of coping questionnaire (K-WCQ), comorbidities measured by age-adjusted Charlson comorbidity index (CCI), and adherence measured by the 8-item Morisky medication adherence scale (MMAS-8). RESULTS: Regarding major CS, 61.2% of participants reported use of support-seeking CS (SUP group), 14.3% reported use of problem-focused CS (PRO group), and 24.5% reported use of hopeful-thinking CS (HOP group). The mean MMAS-8 score was higher in the PRO group than in the HOP group (P = 0.024). The mean CCI score was lower in the PRO group than in the HOP group (P = 0.017). In the HOP group, the severity of somatic symptoms was positively correlated with the scores for the emotion-focused CS subscale (r = 0.39, P = 0.029) and the hopeful-thinking CS subscale (r = 0.38, P = 0.036) of the K-WCQ. The level of life satisfaction positively correlated with the score for the problem-focused CS subscale in the HOP group (r = 0.40, P = 0.027). CONCLUSION: We should pay more attention to the CSs of hemodialysis patients and provide interventions that promote problem-focused CSs, especially for nonadherent patients with high comorbidity rates who mainly use a hopeful-thinking CS.