4.3 Article

Coping Processes, Self-Efficacy, and CPAP Use in Adults With Obstructive Sleep Apnea

期刊

BEHAVIORAL SLEEP MEDICINE
卷 18, 期 1, 页码 68-80

出版社

ROUTLEDGE JOURNALS, TAYLOR & FRANCIS LTD
DOI: 10.1080/15402002.2018.1545651

关键词

-

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [T32 HL007953] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NINR NIH HHS [K99 NR011173] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Coping strategies are predictive of 1 week CPAP use. Coping strategies may predict longer-term CPAP use among adults with obstructive sleep apnea (OSA). Objectives: To investigate the influence of two coping styles (active and passive) and individual coping processes on CPAP use at 1 week and 1 month; and explore the association between self-efficacy and coping on CPAP use. Participants: CPAP-naive adults (52.3% male, 90.9% White) newly diagnosed with OSA (AHI >= 5 events/hr) from two U.S. clinical sleep centers (n = 66). Methods: A post-hoc analysis from a prospective, longitudinal study that examined influential factors on CPAP use among CPAP-naive patients with newly diagnosed OSA. The Ways of Coping Questionnaire and the Self-Efficacy Measure for Sleep Apnea were completed immediately after CPAP titration polysomnography. Objective 1 week and 1 month CPAP use (mean hr/night) were the primary outcomes. Descriptive analyses and stepwise multiple linear regression analyses modeling for CPAP use (mean hr/night). Results: Active coping was significantly associated with greater CPAP use (mean hr/night) at 1 week, but not at 1 month (p = 0.0397; p = 0.0556, respectively). Higher Planful Problem Solving was significantly associated with greater average CPAP use at 1 week and 1 month (p = 0.0117, p = 0.0378, respectively). Self-efficacy was significantly associated with greater average CPAP use at 1 week (p = 0.0056) and 1 month (p = 0.0056). Conclusions: Self-efficacy and Planful Problem Solving coping are promising behavioral intervention targets to promote CPAP use in newly diagnosed OSA.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据