Skip to main content
. 2023 Dec 2;11(3):100354. doi: 10.1016/j.apjon.2023.100354

Table 3.

Partial correlations among dyadic coping, self-efficacy, and quality of life while controlling for the effect of sociodemographic variables.

Variables 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10.
1. DC 1
2. SC 0.836∗∗∗ 1
3. SDC 0.805∗∗∗ 0.810∗∗∗ 1
4. DDC 0.827∗∗∗ 0.799∗∗∗ 0.831∗∗∗ 1
5. CDC 0.752∗∗∗ 0.782∗∗∗ 0.795∗∗∗ 0.773∗∗∗ 1
6. NDC −0.115 −0.499∗∗∗ −0.602∗∗∗ −0.460∗∗∗ −0.564∗∗∗ 1
7. SE 0.289∗∗∗ 0.307∗∗∗ 0.407∗∗∗ 0.400∗∗∗ 0.418∗∗∗ −0.351∗∗∗ 1
8. QoL 0.241∗∗∗ 0.204∗∗ 0.296∗∗∗ 0.286∗∗∗ 0.314∗∗∗ −0.194∗∗ 0.312∗∗∗ 1
9. PCS 0.269∗∗∗ 0.210∗∗ 0.293∗∗∗ 0.274∗∗∗ 0.296∗∗∗ −0.138∗ 0.313∗∗∗ 0.930∗∗∗ 1
10. MCS 0.125 0.135 0.213∗∗ 0.221∗∗ 0.248∗∗∗ −0.224∗∗∗ 0.218∗∗ 0.812∗∗∗ 0.541∗∗∗ 1

Adjusted: education level, Occupation, Residence, income, awareness of human papillomavirus vaccine and learn about the government's free “Cervical and Breast Cancer Screening Service” for women.

DC, dyadic coping; SC, stress communication; SDC, supportive dyadic coping; DDC, delegated dyadic coping; CDC, common dyadic coping; NDC, negative dyadic coping; SE, self-efficacy; QoL, quality of life; PCS, physical component score; MCS, mental component score.

P ​< ​0.001, P ​< ​0.01, P ​< ​0.05.