Table 2.
Results of PTG simple mediation analysis.
| B | SE | t | p | 95% Confidence interval | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LL | UL | |||||
| Model components | ||||||
| The transformative power of suffering → hope | 0.17 | 0.06 | 2.84 | 0.005** | 0.05 | 0.29 |
| Hope → PTG | 0.53 | 0.14 | 3.74 | 0.001*** | 0.25 | 0.81 |
| Direct effect | ||||||
| The transformative power of suffering → PTG | 0.59 | 0.15 | 3.86 | 0.001*** | 0.29 | 0.88 |
| Indirect effect | ||||||
| The transformative power of suffering → hope → PTG | 0.09 | 0.05 | 0.01 | 0.20 | ||
| Total effect | ||||||
| The transformative power of suffering → PTG | 0.68 | 0.15 | 4.42 | 0.001*** | 0.38 | 0.98 |
We included gender, education level, and caregiver status (mother, father, sibling, spouse) in the analysis as control variables. We used spousal caregiver status as the reference category in the caregiver status variable. LL = lower limit of 95% confidence interval, UL= upper limit of 95% confidence interval. We calculated 95% confidence interval lower and upper limits of indirect effect using percentile bootstrap confidence intervals based on 10,000 bootstrap samples, p < .01**, p < .001***.