Table 3.
Tallied Score of Beneficial and Maladaptive Coping Strategies
| Beneficial Coping Strategiesa | Frequency Reported by Participants Freq. (%) | Maladaptive Coping Strategiesa – Frequency Reported by Participants (N=130) | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denials n = 103 Freq. (%) | Behaviour Disengagement n = 55 Freq. (%) | Self-Blame n = 55 Freq. (%) | Substance Use n = 43 Freq. (%) | ||
| Acceptance | 130 (100%) | 22 (21%) | 5 (9%) | 7 (13%) | 3 (7%) |
| Active coping | 129 (99%) | 15 (15%) | 6 (11%) | 8 (15%) | 6 (14%) |
| Religion | 124 (95%) | 11 (11%) | 2 (4%) | 5 (9%) | 2 (5%) |
| Venting | 124 (95%) | 8 (8%) | 9 (16%) | 10 (18%) | 2 (5%) |
| Planning | 123 (95%) | 12 (12%) | – | 2 (4%) | 3 (7%) |
| Use of instrumental support | 123 (95%) | 19 (18%) | 9 (16%) | 9 (16%) | 7 (16%) |
| Emotional support | 120 (92%) | 8 (8%) | 13 (24%) | 9 (16%) | 6 (14%) |
| Self-distraction | 117 (90%) | 16 (16%) | 3 (5%) | 2 (4%) | 8 (19%) |
| Positive reframing | 86 (66%) | 7 (7%) | – | 2 (4%) | 4 (9%) |
| Humour | 57 (44%) | 12 (12%) | 8 (15%) | 1 (2%) | 2 (5%) |
Note: aMultiple response question numbers do not therefore add up to 100%.