↓ Skip to main content

Potentially traumatic events, coping strategies and associations with mental health and well-being measures among conflict-affected youth in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo

Overview of attention for article published in Global Health Research and Policy, July 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (61st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
5 tweeters

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
34 Mendeley
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.
Title
Potentially traumatic events, coping strategies and associations with mental health and well-being measures among conflict-affected youth in Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo
Published in
Global Health Research and Policy, July 2016
DOI 10.1186/s41256-016-0007-6
Pubmed ID
Authors

Megan Cherewick, Shannon Doocy, Wietse Tol, Gilbert Burnham, Nancy Glass

Abstract

Youth in conflict and post-conflict settings are exposed to a variety of potentially-traumatic events that impact their mental health and well-being. The purposes of this study were to examine coping strategies among conflict-affected youth exposed to potentially-traumatic events and the relationship to psychological symptoms and well-being in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). A total of 434 male and female youth (ages 10-15 years) completed data collection with a trained Congolese interviewer. The survey instrument included measures of exposure to potentially traumatic events, an adapted coping strategies checklist, and measures of psychosocial distress and well-being. Exploratory factor analyses was used to identify coping strategies and Hierarchical regression was used to assess how coping strategies were associated with psychological symptoms including internalizing and externalizing problems and well-being outcomes including prosocial behavior and self-esteem. Exploratory Factor analysis suggested four coping strategies; problem-focused, emotion-focused, avoidance and faith-based strategies. Problem-focused coping strategies were associated with greater internalizing and externalizing problems and lower prosocial behavior in both boys and girls. However, when problem-focused strategies were used with emotion-focused coping strategies, the result was fewer internalizing problems in girls and fewer externalizing problems in boys and girls. Emotion-focused, avoidance and faith based strategies were associated with better self-esteem. These results suggest a complex relationship between coping strategies, psychological symptoms and well-being and contradict evidence that problem-focused strategies benefit mental health while emotion-focused strategies harm mental health, particularly in conflict and post-conflict settings. The results suggest coping flexibility, or use of multiple coping strategies may be particularly useful to improving mental health and well-being. The need for context specific understandings of coping strategies in conflict-affected populations is highlighted by the results of the study.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 34 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 34 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 7 21%
Student > Doctoral Student 6 18%
Student > Bachelor 3 9%
Researcher 3 9%
Other 2 6%
Other 9 26%
Unknown 4 12%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 26%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 12%
Social Sciences 4 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 9%
Unspecified 2 6%
Other 5 15%
Unknown 7 21%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 20 October 2016.
All research outputs
#8,157,482
of 15,896,713 outputs
Outputs from Global Health Research and Policy
#70
of 115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,353
of 266,550 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Global Health Research and Policy
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,896,713 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 48th percentile – i.e., 48% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.0. This one is in the 38th percentile – i.e., 38% 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 266,550 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 61% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them