Coping During Pregnancy Following Exposure to a Natural Disaster: The QF2011 Queensland Flood Study

T Chen; D P Laplante; G Elgbeili; A Brunet; G Simcock; S Kildea; S King

doi:10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.165

Coping During Pregnancy Following Exposure to a Natural Disaster: The QF2011 Queensland Flood Study

J Affect Disord. 2020 Aug 1:273:341-349. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.165. Epub 2020 Apr 30.

Authors

T Chen¹, D P Laplante², G Elgbeili², A Brunet³, G Simcock⁴, S Kildea⁵, S King⁶

Affiliations

¹ Department of Psychology, Tsinghua University, Beijing, People's Republic of China; Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada.
² Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada.
³ Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada.
⁴ Mater Research, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia; School of Psychology, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
⁵ Mater Research, The University of Queensland, South Brisbane, Australia; School of Nursing, Midwifery and Social Work, The University of Queensland, St Lucia, Australia.
⁶ Douglas Institute Research Center, Montreal, Canada; Department of Psychiatry, McGill University, Montreal, Canada. Electronic address: Suzanne.king@mcgill.ca.

PMID: 32560927
DOI: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.03.165

Abstract

Introduction: This study investigated how coping strategies moderated the impact of disaster-related objective hardship on subjective distress in pregnant women.

Methods: The objective hardship (exposure severity), subjective distress (Peritraumatic Distress Inventory, Peritraumatic Dissociative Experiences Questionnaire and Impact of Event Scale-Revised) and coping styles (Brief COPE) of pregnant women (N = 226) exposed to the 2011 Queensland, Australia flood were assessed. Moderation analyses were used to assess how coping strategies moderated the relationship between objective hardship and subjective distress levels.

Results: We found that the more severe the objective flood exposure, the greater the women's subjective distress. The moderation analyses were significant for the Brief COPE's three coping styles (i.e., problem-focused coping, emotion-focused coping, and dysfunctional coping). For women experiencing high levels of objective hardship, problem-focused (∆R² = 1.7%) and dysfunctional coping (∆R² = 1.5%) elevated subjective distress levels. For women experiencing low or moderate levels of objective hardship, emotion-focused coping reduced levels of subjective distress (∆R² = 1.3%). A three-way interaction between objective hardship, emotion-focused coping, and dysfunctional coping approached significance (∆R² = 1.0%), indicating a protective role of emotion-focused coping under high levels of objective hardship, for women who frequently use maladaptive coping strategies.

Limitations: Sample was generally high SES and no measure of social support was available.

Conclusion: Results suggest that both problem-focused and dysfunctional coping strategies were maladaptive for women with relatively high exposure levels. Overall, emotion-focused coping strategies were more likely than problem-focused or dysfunctional strategies to reduce pregnant women's subjective distress following the flood.

Keywords: Coping effectiveness; controllability; disaster; posttraumatic stress; pregnancy.

Publication types

Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

MeSH terms

Adaptation, Psychological
Australia
Female
Floods*
Humans
Natural Disasters*
Pregnancy
Queensland
Stress, Psychological

Grants and funding

MOP 115067/CIHR/Canada