The results of this study do not allow causal conclusions regarding the comparative effectiveness of GROW due to the cross sectional nature of the study, and hence cannot be used to determine an explanation for the observed differences. The other is that participation in GROW contributes to improved coping in members, as has been suggested by other studies. One is that GROW attracts a different population than the public system in terms of reduced illness severity, lower symptomatology and more adaptive coping style. Two possible explanations exist for the observed differences in coping. Due to the finding of significant differences between the two samples on a range of demographic and diagnostic measures – especially the significantly higher symptom severity of the Public system subjects – the conclusions that can be drawn from the findings of coping differences are very limited. However this was the result of comparing the two sample groups rather than using matched pairs for comparison. Of the eighteen research hypotheses, nine were confirmed with the finding of significant differences in coping between the two samples in favour of adaptive coping for the GROW subjects. Coping was significantly different between the two groups in ways which consistently suggested more adaptive coping patterns in the GROW sample, supporting findings in other studies. The two samples were similar in chronicity, but significantly different on a range of ten other measures including symptomatology, suggesting they were drawn from two distinct populations. Due to the finding that these matches were significantly dissimilar on measures of symptom severity, paired comparisons were discarded as a basis for determining coping differences. An insufficiently large pool of Public system clients prevented matching for more than 33% of subjects. Coping was assessed by self-report in 30 subjects from each sample using an adapted version of the Adolescent Coping Scale the SCL90-R was used to measure symptom severity. The basis for comparison of coping was to be matching pairs, using criteria of age, gender, relationship status and diagnosis for matching. It was hypothesised that there would be a significant difference in coping between the two samples, in favour of adaptive coping for the GROW subjects on each of eighteen coping items. "The study investigated coping in GROW and non-GROW clients of the public mental health98 system.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |