4.3 Article

Stress self-management: An intervention for women with physical disabilities

Journal

WOMENS HEALTH ISSUES
Volume 16, Issue 6, Pages 389-399

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.whi.2006.08.003

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose. We sought to develop and evaluate the efficacy of an innovative, theory-driven, group stress self-management intervention designed to ameliorate stress and promote health among women with physical disabilities such as spinal cord injury, multiple sclerosis, and arthritis. Methods. We recruited a voluntary sample of 78 community-living women with disabilities who were randomly assigned to either the group stress management intervention or the wait-listed control group, and we used a within- and between-groups pretest/posttest design with a 3-month follow-up. Results. Group differences in changes over time on measures of perceived stress and mental health offer support for the efficacy of the intervention. At the 3-month follow-up assessment, the intervention group also showed greater improvement on measures of pain and role limitations owing to physical health when compared the wait-listed control group. Perceived stress was supported as a mediator of the effect of the intervention on mental health. We found support for social connectedness and self-efficacy as mediators of the relation between the intervention and perceived stress; however, there was relatively weak evidence for differential change over time in those proposed mediators. Conclusion. This study provides the first of its kind, that is, an evaluation of the efficacy of a stress self-management intervention designed specifically for women with physical disabilities. The results are consistent with a model in which the stress management intervention enhances self-efficacy and social connectedness, which leads to reduced stress, which then contributes to improved mental health.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available