Georgian medical news · 2025
COPING STRATEGIES IN CONDITIONS OF CONTINUOUS TRAUMATIC STRESS: COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS WITHIN THE CONTEXT OF ARMED CONFLICT.
СтатьяСравнительное исследованиеНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Shumarova A
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: The study investigates coping mechanisms and the severity of continuous traumatic stress (CTS) factors among individuals with different types of exposure in the context of armed conflict.
METHOD: The study included 201 participants, divided into two primary groups: Group 1 (direct exposure, n=100), which included Subgroup 1.1 (n=70; continuously residing in the conflict zone) and Subgroup 1.2 (n=30; temporarily left the conflict zone), and Group 2 (indirect exposure, n=101). Data were collected using the Method for the Determination of Individual Coping Strategies (MDICS) by E. Heim and a biographical questionnaire.
RESULTS: Subgroup 1.1 primarily relied on stabilizing and restraint strategies and demonstrated associations with all three CTS factors-fear and helplessness, rage and betrayal, and exhaustion and detachment. Subgroup 1.2 exhibited dominant emotional reactions, including rage and detachment, along with avoidant behavior. Participants in Group 2 more often demonstrated fear and helplessness while maintaining a relatively adaptive coping profile.
CONCLUSION: The results reveal significant differences in coping responses and CTS factors depending on the type of exposure, confirming the influence of traumatic context on coping mechanisms.
METHOD: The study included 201 participants, divided into two primary groups: Group 1 (direct exposure, n=100), which included Subgroup 1.1 (n=70; continuously residing in the conflict zone) and Subgroup 1.2 (n=30; temporarily left the conflict zone), and Group 2 (indirect exposure, n=101). Data were collected using the Method for the Determination of Individual Coping Strategies (MDICS) by E. Heim and a biographical questionnaire.
RESULTS: Subgroup 1.1 primarily relied on stabilizing and restraint strategies and demonstrated associations with all three CTS factors-fear and helplessness, rage and betrayal, and exhaustion and detachment. Subgroup 1.2 exhibited dominant emotional reactions, including rage and detachment, along with avoidant behavior. Participants in Group 2 more often demonstrated fear and helplessness while maintaining a relatively adaptive coping profile.
CONCLUSION: The results reveal significant differences in coping responses and CTS factors depending on the type of exposure, confirming the influence of traumatic context on coping mechanisms.