The development of the revised COPE 68 inventory with English and Slovak versions.

Introduction: Although there have been several attempts at improving the COPE Inventory, the factor structure of the instrument is still in dispute. In addition, studies have shown low reliability coefficients for some of the first-order factors, with Mental Disengagement having the lowest factor loadings. In a recent study on the external validation of the instrument, two additional first-order factors were identified in the qualitative analysis, namely Self-care and Care for Others. Methods: Based on these arguments we created the Revised COPE 68 Inventory, changing some of the problematic items in the first order factor Mental Disengagement and adding items for the two new factors (Self-care and Care for Others). We then tested its reliability and performed factor analyses on the first and second-order factorial structure. The data were collected through social media in two languages, English and Slovak, using convenience and snowball sampling techniques. The English sample contained 834 participants with mean age 25.27 years (SD = 8.467) and the Slovak sample comprised 1,425 participants with mean age 33 years (SD = 14.59). For the statistical analyses we used Exploratory Structural Equation Model (ESEM) analyses with target rotation and WLSMV, Exploratory and second-order confirmatory factor analysis with the scores of the COPE Inventory and EFA. Results: The Revised COPE 68 inventory had a good fit for all 17 first-order factors in both languages, including for the new factors Self-care and Care for Others. It appears that the first-order factors form a three-factor solution in both samples, consisting of active coping, social-emotional coping and avoidant coping. The revised Mental Disengagement has better psychometric properties as well. Discussion: The Revised COPE 68 inventory was found to be a reliable multidimensional instrument for measuring various coping strategies in both the English and Slovak language versions.

Differences Between High and Low Self-Critics in Compassionate Facial Expression.

The goal of this study was to identify differences between high and low self-critical participants in relation to compassionate facial expressions. Our convenience sample consisted of 151 participants aged 18-59 years old (M = 25.17; SD = 7.81). The highest and the lowest scoring participants in self-criticism were selected for final analysis (N = 35). Participants, at home alone, watched a short video stimulus eliciting compassion while their facial expressions were recorded using webcams. Out of the sample we selected the highest 10% and the lowest 10% of self-critical participants according to the Slovak norms of The Forms of Self-Criticizing/Attacking and Self-Reassuring Scale. Two certified Facial Action Coding System raters (FACS) coded the participants' muscular activity according to facial action units. The FACS analysis revealed that action units 4 - brow lowerer, 7 - lids tight, 43 - eyes closed, 45 - blink, 55 - head tilt left, and 56 - head tilt right occurred significantly less often in high self-critical participants than in low self-critical participants, controlling for the difference between the baseline and compassionate moments in the video stimulus. Our research found that participants high in self-criticism were less facially expressive than those low in self-critical when watching compassionate video.

Let Us Take It into Our Own Hands: Patient Experience during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

The COVID-19 pandemic introduced new health situations for patients and health professionals alike and, with them, opportunities to study these new patient experiences, gain insights into changed healthcare practices, and propose potential new healthcare solutions. The aim of our study was to explore how people coped with their health issues during the pandemic. We utilized a consensual qualitative analysis. The convenience sample that was gathered online through social media comprised 1683 participants with a mean age of 31.02 years (SD = 11.99). The 50 participants from the convenience sample who scored the highest on subscales of the COPE inventory were selected for in-depth interviews. In-depth interviews with 27 participants from the convenience sample who reported a health issue were analyzed. The final sample in our study therefore comprised 17 women (63%) and 10 men (37%) with a mean age of 28.35 years (SD = 9.31). The results showed that behavioral coping with health problems was mentioned across all participants' accounts. However, participants facing a health issue during the COVID-19 pandemic mostly relied on their own self-help instead of on healthcare services. They utilized healthcare services only when absolutely necessary. Furthermore, the participants had two main sources of resilience: themselves and other people.

There must be a way out: The consensual qualitative analysis of best coping practices during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Despite the continuous efforts to understand coping processes, very little is known about the utilization of best coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. In this study, we aimed to analyze the coping strategies of individuals who scored high on an adaptive coping questionnaire in order to understand the most adaptive coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic. We used consensual qualitative analysis in a team of four researchers and one auditor. The convenience sample from which we identified the high scorers comprised 1,683 participants (67% women, 32.35% men, and 0.65% did not report their gender) with a mean age of 31.02 years (SD = 11.99) ranging between 18 and 77 years old. Based on their scoring in the COPE Inventory, nine participants were selected from the sample with the highest scores in coping skills in at least two out of its 15 subscales. In-depth repeated interviews with six participants for the main analysis were conducted, and three were added to check the data saturation. The results showed that the most adaptive coping strategies used during the COVID-19 pandemic could be categorized into four main domains: self-compassion, compassion to others, compassion from others, and mutual compassion. The most frequently mentioned and the most elaborated upon by our respondents was the domain of self-compassion. The most interesting finding was the emergence of the fourth type of compassion, labeled mutual compassion, which referred to deliberate attempts to take care of oneself and others while suffering together in order to elevate the suffering for both. This kind of compassion might arise in the situations of collective suffering, such as a catastrophe or a pandemic and might have the additional benefit of bringing people closer to each other in difficult times.

The Factor Structure and External Validity of the COPE 60 Inventory in Slovak Translation.

The COPE Inventory (Carver et al., 1989) is the most frequently used measure of coping; yet previous studies examining its factor structure yielded mixed results. The purpose of the current study, therefore, was to validate the factor structure of the COPE Inventory in a representative sample of over 2,000 adults in Slovakia. Our second goal was to evaluate the external validity of the COPE inventory, which has not been done before. Firstly, we performed the exploratory factor analysis (EFA) with half of the sample. Subsequently, we performed the confirmatory factor analysis with the second half of the sample. Both factor analyses with 15 factor solutions showed excellent fit with the data. Additionally, we performed a hierarchical factor analysis with fifteen first-order factors (acceptance, active coping, behavioral disengagement, denial, seeking emotional support, humor, seeking instrumental support, mental disengagement, planning, positive reinterpretation, religion, restraint, substance use, suppression of competing activities, and venting) and three second-order factors (active coping, social emotional coping, and avoidance coping) which showed good fit with the data. Moreover, the COPE Inventory's external validity was evaluated using consensual qualitative research (CQR) analysis on data collected by in-depth interviews. Categories of coping created using CQR corresponded with all COPE first-order factors. Moreover, we identified two additional first-order factors that were not present in the COPE Inventory: self-care and care for others. Our study shows that the Slovak translation of the COPE Inventory is a reliable, externally valid, and well-structured instrument for measuring coping in the Slovak population.