Abstract
Background
Coping with health problems requires some degree of self-management; however, an individual’s ability to self-manage can be threatened during challenging times, such as the COVID-19 pandemic. Exploring differences and changes in psychological well-being and coping strategies between those with low and high patient activation may inform appropriate interventions to support psychological coping.
Methods
People with chronic kidney disease (CKD) (non-dialysis and transplant) were recruited from 11 hospital sites across England between August and December 2020. Participants responded to an online survey study, including the Brief Coping Orientation to Problem Experienced (COPE) Inventory, Depression, Anxiety and Stress Scale (DASS-21), Short Health Anxiety Index (SHAI), and Patient Activation Measure (PAM-13). A follow-up survey was conducted 6–9 months later. Paired t tests assessed within-group changes, and chi-squared tests compared coping strategies utilised by low- and high-activated participants. General linear modelling was performed to determine the relationship between patient activation and coping strategies, and covariates.
Results
Two hundred and fourteen participants were recruited (mean age: 60.7, 51% male, mean eGFR: 38.9 ml/min/1.73 m2). Low-activated participants were significantly more anxious than high-activated participants (P = 0.045). Health anxiety significantly decreased (i.e., got better) for high-activated participants (P = 0.016). Higher patient activation scores were associated with greater use of problem-focused strategies (β = 0.288, P < 0.001). Age (β = − 0.174, P = 0.012), sex (β = 0.188, P = 0.004), and education level (β = 0.159, P = 0.019) significantly predicted use of problem-focused strategies.
Discussion
Those with higher activation had lower levels of anxiety, and more frequently used adaptive coping strategies during the pandemic. Targeted support and interventions may be required for people with CKD to enhance patient activation, encourage more positive adaptive coping strategies, and mitigate maladaptive coping strategies.
Graphical abstract
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Managing long-term conditions, like chronic kidney disease (CKD), and dealing with the associated health and psychosocial problems requires some degree of self-management. Successful self-management involves having the knowledge to understand what to do and why, the skills to be able to perform the required tasks or behaviours, and the confidence to do them—termed patient activation [1]. An individual’s ability to self-manage their health can be threatened during challenging/stressful times, such as the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The adverse impacts of COVID-19, including drastic changes in day-to-day routines [2] and interruptions to routine healthcare [3, 4], had a profound negative impact on psychological well-being [5], particularly for individuals with long-term conditions like CKD [6, 7].
Cognitive stress appraisal enables individuals to identify if they have the necessary resources to manage stress(ors)—referred to as coping strategies [8, 9]. Lazarus and Folkman’s [10, 11] transactional model of stress and coping is the predominant theoretical model that underpins how individuals appraise stress and how they adapt (or not). Coping strategies (defined as cognitive, emotional, and/or behavioural response(s) to stress [12]) can be divided dichotomously into ‘problem-focused’ (efforts to modify the problem, e.g. active coping, behavioural change) and ‘emotional-focused’ (efforts to manage the emotional distress, e.g. emotional support, denial) dimensions [8, 13], or into ‘approach’ versus ‘avoidant’ coping styles [14, 15]. Non-avoidant adaptive coping, ‘problem-focused’ (e.g. active coping, planning, instrumental support) or ‘emotion-focused’ (e.g. acceptance, positive reframing, emotional support), is when individuals take appropriate precautionary action toward the stressful event for self-protection and can lead to resilience in the face of stress(ors). However, when an individual considers themselves to be inadequately equipped to cope, this can lead to further stress and engagement in maladaptive ‘dysfunctional’ or ‘avoidant’ coping strategies (e.g. self-distraction, behavioural disengagement) [16, 17] and may hurt individuals’ self-interests [18]. Appraisal may prompt adaptive or maladaptive responses, and distinct appraisals work mutually to determine individuals’ responses toward the stressful event [17]. Appropriate information may prompt the implementation of adaptive responses and facilitate protective behaviour, whereas a lack of fear may provoke maladaptive responses and result in dangerous behaviour [19]. Whilst some coping responses may be beneficial for some people in some situations, they may not be beneficial for others or in other situations [20]. A given coping strategy may not be intrinsically maladaptive but may become dysfunctional if it is relied on for long periods when other strategies are more useful [15]. The bipolar coping dimensions are not mutually exclusive and can be applied simultaneously, demonstrating low or high engagement with either the problem or emotions [21].
It could be hypothesised that greater levels of patient activation may have a positive effect on psychological well-being and coping. Exploring this relationship could provide a better understanding of the types of coping strategies used by low- and high-activated individuals, enabling healthcare professionals to offer tailored help and support to patients during ongoing or future stressors which may potentially impact their ability to self-manage. Thus, this study aimed to identify differences in psychological well-being and coping strategies between those with low and high patient activation levels, and to explore the associations between patient activation and coping strategies in people with CKD during the COVID-19 pandemic—a time of potentially challenging circumstances.
Methods
Study design and setting
The data presented here were taken from a survey-based longitudinal sub-study of the multi-centre observational DIMENSION-KD study (ISRCTN84422148). In 2020, the DIMENSION-KD study was adapted in response to the developing COVID-19 pandemic. The adapted study aimed to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on lifestyle determinants and factors associated with living with CKD, healthcare provision, risk perception and coping strategies in people with CKD. The present data collection commenced in August 2020. Participants completed two online surveys. The initial survey consisted of two parts: Part 1 included demographic information, and questions designed to assess participants’ understanding and beliefs of COVID-19 and its impact; Part 2 included validated questionnaires assessing patient activation, health anxiety, and coping strategies. The follow-up survey, completed between May and June 2021, was a condensed version of the initial survey and included the validated questionnaires. Data were collected using Jisc Online Surveys (Bristol, UK). UK COVID-19 restrictions in place at the survey timepoints are detailed in Supplementary Material 1. The study received national research ethical approval by the Leicester Research Ethics Committee (18/EM/0117). All participants provided informed written consent and the study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki.
Participants
Participants were recruited between August and December 2020 across 11 hospital sites in England, UK. Participants were included if they: (1) had been diagnosed with a kidney condition (CKD stages 1–5 not requiring dialysis (ND-CKD)), or were a kidney transplant recipient; (2) were aged ≥ 18 years; and (3) were able to provide informed consent. Those receiving dialysis were excluded from the study as their treatment and healthcare continued ‘as normal’ during the study period.
Outcome measures
Sociodemographic
Basic self-reported sociodemographic variables, including age, sex, ethnicity, and social deprivation (via postcode), were collected, along with self-reported CKD status and other health conditions, and COVID-19 infection. Participants’ most recent clinical data, including kidney function (estimated glomerular filtration rate, eGFR), cause of disease, haemoglobin, and albumin were extracted from their medical records.
Patient activation measure (PAM-13)
The PAM-13 is a 13-item questionnaire designed to assess an individual’s knowledge, skills, and confidence in managing their health(care) [22]. Items are measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “strongly disagree” to “strongly agree”. The PAM-13 is scored from 0 to 100, which correlates to one of four levels. PAM Levels 1 (PAM-13 score: ≤ 47) and 2 (47.1–55.1) indicate lower activation; Levels 3 (55.2–67) and 4 (≥ 67.1) indicate higher activation. The PAM-13 shows good internal consistency and has been validated in CKD [23].
Coping orientation to problems experienced inventory (Brief-COPE)
The Brief-COPE is a 28-item questionnaire designed to assess a range of coping responses in relation to a stressful life event [14]. Items are measured on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “I haven’t been doing this at all” to “I’ve been doing this a lot”. There are 14 scales comprising two items each, with scores ranging from 2 (minimum) to 8 (maximum). The scale can indicate the degree to which the respondent has been engaging in each coping style (higher scores indicate increased utilisation) and can determine one’s primary coping style: problem-focused, emotion-focused, and avoidant. The Brief-COPE has established good internal consistency, reliability, and validity. Although these coping strategies overall cannot be termed as adaptive or maladaptive and are dependent on the context and situation, we have clustered them using the suggested grouping defined previously [24,25,26]. Adaptive stress-coping included several strategies: religion; active coping; planning; acceptance; positive reframing; instrumental support; emotional support; and humour. Maladaptive stress-coping included several strategies: behavioural disengagement; denial; self-distraction; self-blame; substance use; and venting.
Short health anxiety inventory (SHAI)
The SHAI is an 18-item instrument which assesses health anxiety (worry about health, awareness of bodily sensations or changes, feared consequences of having an illness) independently of physical health status [27]. Items are weighted 0–3 and are summed to obtain a total score (0–54), with higher scores indicating increased health anxiety. The SHAI has demonstrated good reliability and validity [27]. The SHAI was developed as a brief screening tool [27] and is widely used by clinicians and researchers assessing health anxiety symptoms across non-clinical, clinical, and medical samples [28].
Depression, anxiety and stress scale (DASS-21)
The DASS-21 is a 21-item questionnaire assessing three scales designed to measure the emotional states of depression, anxiety, and stress [29]. Each scale contains 7 items assessed on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never” to “almost always”. Scores for each scale are calculated by summing the scores of the relevant items and are summed for a total score (0–120). The DASS-21 has excellent internal consistency and reliability [30]. The DASS is a screening tool designed to assess symptoms of depression, anxiety, or stress, but cannot diagnose them as conditions [31].
Data analysis
Descriptive and frequency statistics were used to describe participant characteristics, and are presented as mean (standard deviation (SD)), and change-related data are presented as means (95% confidence intervals) unless otherwise stated. Baseline characteristics were compared using independent samples t tests. Within-group changes were analysed by paired-sample t-tests or Wilcoxon signed-rank test, as appropriate. Statistical analysis was performed using IBM SPSS 26 software (IBM, Chicago, IL). Statistical significance was accepted as P < 0.05.
Participants were categorised into ‘low’ and ‘high’ activation based on their PAM Level. Coping strategies were classed into binary variables to indicate the degree of engagement (i.e., frequently used and not used). A score ≥ 6 indicates that they moderately engaged with the coping strategy (i.e., ‘a medium amount’ or ‘a lot’). Coping strategies were classified into adaptive (active coping, information support, positive reframing, planning, emotional support, humour, acceptance, and religion) and maladaptive (venting, self-blame, self-distraction, denial, substance use, and behavioural disengagement) coping strategies. Frequency analysis and Chi-squared tests were conducted to compare coping strategies used between high and low-activated participants. General linear models were fitted to determine between-group differences with the change as the dependent variable and the group assignment, age, sex, ethnicity, and CKD stage as covariates.
Data on the impact of COVID-19 on people living with CKD and kidney healthcare provision during the pandemic are reported elsewhere [32,33,34].
Results
Baseline characteristics
A total of 214 participants completed the initial questionnaire (timepoint 1) and were included in the analysis. Seventy-seven (36%) completed it during a period of no restrictions, 48 (22%) during a national lockdown, 36 (17%) when their local area was in Tier 1 (medium restrictions), 31 (15%) in Tier 2 (high restrictions), and 22 (10%) in Tier 3 (very high restrictions). Of these, 109 (51%) were male and 197 (92%) were White British; the mean age was 60.7 years (SD 14.1 range 18–89). One hundred and twenty participants (56%) were kidney transplant recipients. The mean eGFR for ND-CKD participants was 38.9 (SD 23.8) ml/min/1.73 m2. Of the 214 who completed the initial survey, 93 (43%) completed the follow-up survey (timepoint 2) and were included in a cohort assessing changes in mental health status and coping strategies employed between timepoints. Of these, 49 (53%) were male and 87 (94%) were White British; the mean age was 63.9 years (SD 11.5 range 18–89). 50 participants (54%) were kidney transplant recipients. Participant characteristics are detailed in Table 1.
Forty-three (20%) individuals reported depression, anxiety, or other mental health problems. The mean scores for anxiety, depression, and stress were 2.75 (± 3.38), 4.75 (± 4.22), and 4.89 (± 3.90), respectively. The mean SHAI score was 13.0 (± 6.6). The mean PAM score was 66.7 (± 14.6). Kidney transplant recipients had significantly higher PAM scores (70.0 ± 13.7) compared to ND-CKD participants (62.5 ± 14.7) (P < 0.001). Scores are displayed in Table 2.
COVID-19 infection rates
At timepoint 1, 2% (n = 11) self-reported having a positive COVID-19 test result, and 3% (n = 16) suspected having COVID-19 but this was not confirmed by a test result. Eighty-six percent reported not being infected and 9% were unsure. At timepoint 2, 3% (n = 8) reported having a positive test result and 2% (n = 5) suspected having COVID-19. Forty percent (n = 93) reported testing and having a negative result, and 53% (n = 123) stated not suspecting that they had COVID-19 nor experienced any symptoms. Of those who reported having COVID-19 (n = 13), 92% reported staying at home, with one individual (8%) admitted to hospital. Fifty percent reported having mild symptoms, 33% moderate, and 17% severe symptoms. Sixty-two percent reported experiencing symptoms for less than two weeks, 23% between two weeks and a month, and 15% for more than a month.
Levels of anxiety, depression, stress, and health anxiety
Table 2 shows the levels of anxiety, depression, stress, and health anxiety of low- and high-activated participants at both timepoints. Significant differences were observed between anxiety scores of low- and high-activated participants at timepoint 1 (P = 0.045). No differences were observed in depression, stress, or health anxiety scores between activation groups, nor between kidney transplant recipients and ND-CKD participants.
Coping strategies utilised
The proportion of low and high-activated participants who reported using each coping strategy is displayed in Fig. 1 (data are available in Supplementary Material 2).
‘Acceptance’ was the most frequently reported adaptive coping strategy utilised by both low (59%) and high (80%) activated participants. A significantly greater proportion of high-activated participants reported using adaptive coping strategies: ‘active coping’ (P = 0.037), ‘positive reframing’ (P = 0.026), and ‘acceptance’ (P = 0.007). A significantly greater proportion of kidney transplant recipients used positive reframing (P = 0.038) compared to ND-CKD.
‘Disengagement’ was the most frequently reported maladaptive coping strategy utilised, with 100% of low-activated and 86% of high-activated participants using it. ‘Self-distraction’ (53% and 48%) and ‘substance use’ (32% and 40%) were the next most reported maladaptive coping strategies by both high- and low-activated participants, respectively. No significant differences were observed in the maladaptive coping strategies used.
Relationship between patient activation and coping strategies
Table 3 displays the mean scores for each coping strategy. Higher patient activation scores were associated with greater use of problem-focused strategies (β = 0.288, P < 0.001), including active coping (β = 0.319, P < 0.001), positive reframing (β = 0.364, P < 0.001), planning (β = 0.234, P < 0.001), and acceptance (β = 0.192, P = 0.035).
Factors predicting coping strategies used
Being younger significantly predicted use of problem-focused (β = 0.174, P = 0.012), emotion-focused (β = 0.153, P = 0.039), and avoidant coping strategies (β = 0.226, P = 0.002). Being female significantly predicted avoidant coping (β = 0.174, P = 0.016). Higher levels of education level significantly predicted the use of problem-focused strategies (β = 0.159, P = 0.019), active coping (B = 0.178, P = 0.036), instrumental support (β = 0.280, P = 0.044), and planning (β = 0.180, P = 0.048). Lower levels of education significantly predicted the use of self-distraction (β = 0.260, P = 0.008) and positive reframing (β = 0.174, P = 0.029). Being non-White significantly predicted the use of substance use (β = 0.513, P = 0.040), behavioural disengagement (β = 0.605, P = 0.033), and positive reframing (β = 0.171, P = 0,037). Decreased social deprivation significantly predicted the use of positive reframing (β = 0.174, P = 0.029).
Changes in mental health status
Changes in anxiety, depression, stress, and health anxiety scores between low- and high-activated participants are displayed in Table 4. Anxiety, depression, and stress scores (DASS-21) did not significantly change between timepoints for either low- or high-activated participants. Health anxiety scores (SHAI) significantly decreased (i.e., got better) between timepoints for high-activated participants (P = 0.016), but not for low-activated participants, with no significant difference for the change in health anxiety scores between the two groups.
Changes in coping strategies utilised
At timepoint 2, a significantly lower proportion of low-activated participants reported using emotional support (P = 0.003), humour (P = 0.035), acceptance (P = 0.039), and religion (P = 0.025) as coping strategies than at timepoint 1. For high-activated individuals, a significantly lower proportion used self-distraction (P = 0.001), active coping (P = 0.011), emotional support (P < 0.001), instrumental support (P = 0.005), positive reframing (P − 0.007), humour (P = 0.032), and religion (P = 0.001) as coping strategies at timepoint 2 compared to timepoint 1. In addition, the reported use of emotional-focused (P = 0.001) and avoidant (P = 0.012) coping strategies was lower at timepoint 2 by high-activated individuals.
Changes in patient activation
Changes in PAM-13 scores between low- and high-activated participants are displayed in Table 4. PAM-13 scores for high-activated participants significantly decreased between timepoints (P = 0.030). No significant change was observed in low-activated individuals. There was a significant difference in the change of PAM score between low- and high-activated individuals (P = 0.023).
Discussion
Our findings showed that low-activated participants had significantly higher levels of anxiety during the COVID-19 pandemic compared to high-activated participants. They also had greater levels of depression, stress, and higher levels of health-related anxiety when compared to high-activated participants, although not statistically significant. Between timepoints, no significant differences between low- and high-activated participants for anxiety, depression, stress, or health anxiety were observed. Only high-activated participants had a significant change across timepoints for health anxiety. Whilst the most common adaptive (‘acceptance’) and maladaptive (‘behavioural disengagement’) coping strategies used were similar, a greater proportion of high-activated individuals used adaptive coping strategies and low-activated individuals used maladaptive ones. Higher patient activation was associated with significantly greater use of problem-focused strategies, with age, sex, and education level significantly predicting their usage.
The findings from this study can be interpreted in the context of coping theories. When an individual is faced with stressful situations, like those experienced during the pandemic, they will appraise the stressor and utilise resources to enable stress reduction [8]; this can involve applying strategies to the given situation to manage, altering the problem causing the distress (‘problem-focused’) and/or regulating emotional responses to the problem (‘emotion-focused’) [8]. Given that patient activation considers an individual’s ability to maintain their behaviours in times of stress [35], it is perhaps unsurprising that we found that high-activated individuals more frequently reported utilising problem-focused coping strategies.
The results suggest that a high proportion of individuals, regardless of activation level, exhibited behavioural disengagement. Experiential avoidance (i.e., avoiding thinking about and reducing efforts to deal with stress(ors)) is a common response that enables temporary relief; whilst this may elevate distress in the short-term, it can prolong or amplify distress long-term [36]. If avoidance becomes an inflexible pattern of behaviour, this can affect an individual’s functioning across different areas of their life and can lead to significant long-term health effects [37], including depression and anxiety [38]. Adoption of new coping strategies, particularly problem-focused as opposed to emotion-focused, can lead to improvements in mental health [39, 40], and can help people move from a place of avoidance to more changeable domains (i.e., overt behaviour) to enact a process of adjustment.
The frequency, and type, of coping strategies used changed between timepoints. This supports previous evidence which suggests that coping changes over time [41]. Coping is a dynamic and transactional process whereby the individual considers the situation through a complex evaluation process [42]; the individual’s perception of the significance of the situation in relation to their personal values, beliefs, or intentions (known as primary appraisal), and the examination of the resources/coping options available to reduce negative arousal and increase positive outcomes [8]. Events related to the COVID-19 pandemic may have affected individuals’ coping resources and their usual psychological responses [41, 43]. Stress experienced can be highly individual and dependent on numerous factors—the way individuals cope not only relates to socio-demographic/psychosocial predictors of coping but also prior adversities and personality traits [41]. There is not one coping strategy that is uniformly better for managing stress [36]; those who are better able to regulate their emotions and engage more positively may be more likely to use a range of coping strategies [44]. Individuals who engage in a greater number of positive coping strategies have a greater sense of control, level of acceptance, and ability to adjust/adapt their coping responses [44], and higher levels of resilience [45]. Thus, it is perhaps unsurprising that our findings highlight that high-activated individuals used a greater number of adaptive coping strategies.
Worrying, regardless of activation level, a third of individuals reported substance use as a form of coping during the pandemic (e.g., use of alcohol or other drugs to help one feel better and get through it). This finding is somewhat concerning, but not uncommon. Several studies conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic have reported increased alcohol consumption compared to consumption rates before the COVID-19 pandemic [46, 47], as a result of increased stress and boredom [47]. Research has shown increased engagement in binge drinking and extreme binge drinking during COVID-19 [47]. A qualitative study exploring coping strategies employed by individuals during the pandemic, identified the consumption of alcohol as a theme, with participants reporting drinking alcohol to cope and survive [48]. The consumption of alcohol during the pandemic is associated with younger age, more children at home, non-healthcare workers, and being unemployed as a result of COVID-19 [49]. Consuming alcohol as a form of coping, or engaging in other maladaptive coping strategies, could be a risk for developing further health problems [48].
Like Chen et al. [50], but in contrast to others [41], we found that younger adults were more likely to engage with both problem-focused (e.g. planning, active coping) and emotion-focused (e.g. acceptance) strategies. Like others [41], we found that females were more likely to use both avoidant and active coping strategies; this may be a consequence of experiencing greater levels of stress [51, 52]. Similar to other studies [53, 54], we found ethnicity to be associated with the use of religion as a form of coping; when faced with stressful situations, individuals from ethnic groups (e.g. Black, Asian) are more likely to use religion [53, 54]. Socio-demographic characteristics may be an indicator of those who may benefit from targeted interventions and additional support.
Whilst these data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic, the findings can apply to other challenging situations/periods that may potentially impact an individual’s ability to self-manage. People with CKD experience numerous stressful events during their lives that evoke coping responses, including CKD-related ones (e.g., initial diagnosis, disease progression, transition of treatment) alongside life events (e.g., births, deaths). People with CKD use more maladaptive coping strategies [55], which are associated with poorer illness perceptions and increased psychological distress [56]. Increasing active engagement, self-efficacy, self-regulation, and patient activation [57] could help individuals develop more adaptive coping strategies and reduce psychological distress [58].
Assessing the patient’s activation level may provide an understanding of the coping strategies they may employ. Delivering appropriate tailored help and support, focusing on fostering/developing activation and positive coping, could provide individuals with an armoury or toolbox of adaptive coping strategies that can be applied during challenging circumstances. Tailored, psychotherapeutic and cognitive behavioural interventions, delivered by psychologists and other mental health professionals, can support reductions in psychological distress by challenging distressing beliefs or cognitions, and improving psychological adaptation by emotion regulation to facilitate adapting coping responses to a perceived threat [59, 60]. Whilst the provision of psychosocial interventions for people with CKD is variable, the UK’s Renal Service Transformation Programme has recently gained consensus and provided recommendations on the most appropriate kidney-specific psychosocial management for people living with CKD [61]. One recommendation includes appropriate referral to relevant services (e.g., psychology, counselling or psychotherapy, social work or liaison psychiatry) to support those who have been identified as having psychosocial needs. Targeted interventions for those with less developed coping, including disadvantaged groups (e.g., female, older, non-White, less educated, increased social deprivation), will likely have the greatest impact.
Our study is strengthened by the use of validated questionnaires to assess patient activation and coping strategies utilisation. Whilst we included both ND-CKD patients and kidney transplant recipients, our sample was fairly homogeneous (e.g., older, White ethnicity). We were reliant on self-reported health status and had limited clinical data to verify the self-reported data; however, the comorbidities reported are representative of the general CKD population, so likely that our sample size is generalizable. The low response rate for the follow-up survey may be a result of the increased distribution of surveys during the COVID-19 pandemic which resulted in survey fatigue, reduced response rates, and data collection quality [62]. Despite this, participant characteristics of those who completed the follow-up survey were similar to those who completed the initial survey. The questionnaires used in this analysis were delivered as part of a larger survey and the response rate or completion of the questionnaires reported here might have been greater if they were delivered on their own because the larger survey may have fatigued respondents. The level of patient activation was slightly, but not alarmingly, higher in this cohort than reported in other non-dialysis CKD studies [63,64,65,66]. Like other studies, patient activation was higher in our study than in data collected routinely within clinical practice where a smaller proportion of patients had high levels of activation and a greater proportion had Level 1 activation [67]. Due to the pandemic, the study was conducted entirely online which could have resulted in digital exclusion, and those who are not online (typically older, less affluent, with limited education) may be under-represented. As these factors influenced coping strategies utilised, the inclusion of these individuals in future work exploring coping strategies would be advantageous.
Conclusion
High-activated individuals had lower levels of stress, anxiety, and depression, and more frequently used adaptive coping strategies. Increasing patient activation has the potential to increase skills and confidence when dealing with difficult/challenging situations, adoption of more problem-focused coping strategies, and adaptation of coping response(s). Individuals with lower levels of activation, and at risk of engaging with more avoidant coping strategies, may need targeted support and interventions that enhance patient activation, cognitive flexibility, and reappraisal to strengthen positive coping strategies and mitigate maladaptive coping strategies.
Data availability
The data that support the findings of this study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Hibbard J, Gilburt H (2014) Supporting people to manage their health: an introduction to patient activation. The King’s Fund, London
Mazidi M et al (2021) Diet and lifestyle behaviour disruption related to the pandemic was varied and bidirectional among US and UK adults participating in the ZOE COVID Study. Nature Food 2(12):957–969
Deng D et al (2022) The COVID-19 pandemic and access to health care in people with chronic kidney disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Nephrology 27(5):410–420
Geetha D et al (2022) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the kidney community: lessons learned and future directions. Nat Rev Nephrol 18(11):724–737
Pierce M et al (2020) Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population. Lancet Psychiatry 7(10):883–892
Lee J et al (2020) Psychosocial impact of COVID-19 pandemic on patients with end-stage kidney disease on hemodialysis. Kidney360 1(12):1390–1397
McKeaveney C et al (2021) Psychosocial well-being of patients with kidney failure receiving haemodialysis during a pandemic: a survey. Healthcare 9(8):1087
Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1984) Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer publishing company
Lazarus R, Folkman S (1991) The concept of coping. In: Monat IA, Lazarus RS (eds) Stress and coping: an anthology. Columbia University Press, New York
Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1986) Cognitive theories of stress and the issue of circularity. Dynamics of stress. Springer, pp 63–80
Lazarus RS, Folkman S (1987) Transactional theory and research on emotions and coping. Eur J Pers 1(3):141–169
Endler N, Parker J (1999) Coping inventory for stressful situations (CISS). Manual psychological reports. Multi-Health Systems, Toronto
Baker JP, Berenbaum H (2007) Emotional approach and problem-focused coping: a comparison of potentially adaptive strategies. Cogn Emot 21(1):95–118
Carver CS (1997) You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: consider the brief COPE. Int J Behav Med 4(1):92–100
Carver CS, Scheier MF, Weintraub JK (1989) Assessing coping strategies: a theoretically based approach. J Pers Soc Psychol 56(2):267–283
Skinner EA et al (2003) Searching for the structure of coping: a review and critique of category systems for classifying ways of coping. Psychol Bull 129(2):216–269
Rippetoe PA, Rogers RW (1987) Effects of components of protection-motivation theory on adaptive and maladaptive coping with a health threat. J Pers Soc Psychol 52(3):596–604
Tan G et al (2011) Adaptive versus maladaptive coping and beliefs and their relation to chronic pain adjustment. Clin J Pain 27(9):769–774
Eppright DR et al (2002) Fear, coping, and information: a pilot study on motivating a healthy response. Health Mark Q 20(1):51–73
Wortman CB, Lehman DR (1985) Reactions to victims of life crises: Support attempts that fail. Social support: theory, research and applications. Springer, pp 463–489
Stanisławski K (2019) The coping circumplex model: an integrative model of the structure of coping with stress. Front Psychol 10:694
Hibbard JH et al (2005) Development and testing of a short form of the patient activation measure. Health Serv Res 40(6 Pt 1):1918–1930
Lightfoot CJ et al (2021) Reliability and validity of the patient activation measure in kidney disease: results of rasch analysis. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 16(6):880–888
Mahmoud JSR et al (2012) The relationship among young adult college students’ depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life satisfaction, and coping styles. Issues Ment Health Nurs 33(3):149–156
Kasi PM et al (2012) Coping styles in patients with anxiety and depression. ISRN Psychiatry 2012:128672
Alosaimi FD et al (2018) Stress and coping among consultant physicians working in Saudi Arabia. Ann Saudi Med 38(3):214–224
Salkovskis PM et al (2002) The health anxiety inventory: development and validation of scales for the measurement of health anxiety and hypochondriasis. Psychol Med 32(5):843–853
Alberts NM et al (2013) The short health anxiety inventory: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Anxiety Disord 27(1):68–78
Antony MM et al (1998) Psychometric properties of the 42-item and 21-item versions of the depression anxiety stress scales in clinical groups and a community sample. Psychol Assess 10(2):176
Coker AO, Coker O, Sanni D (2018) Psychometric properties of the 21-item depression anxiety stress scale (DASS-21). Afr Res Rev 12(2):135–142
Lovibond SH (1995) Manual for the depression anxiety stress scales. Sydney psychology foundation
Wilkinson TJ et al (2022) Navigating the COVID-19 infodemic in those living with kidney disease: access and trust in health information sources and the association with anxiety and depression. Curr Med Res Opin 38(1):35–42
Lightfoot CJ et al (2022) Patient and staff experiences of remote kidney healthcare: lessons learnt from COVID-19. J Nephrol 35(1):363–365
Kanavaki AM et al (2021) Kidney care during COVID-19 in the UK: perspectives of healthcare professionals on impacts on care quality and staff well-being. Int J Environ Res Public Health 19(1):188
Lightfoot CJ et al (2022) Patient activation: the cornerstone of effective self-management in chronic kidney disease? Kidney Dial 2(1):91–105
Snooks MK (2008) Health psychology: biological, psychological, and sociocultural perspectives. Jones & Bartlett Publishers
Busch IM et al (2020) Dealing with adverse events: a meta-analysis on second victims’ coping strategies. J Patient Saf 16(2):e51–e60
Beck AT (1979) Cognitive therapy and the emotional disorders. Penguin
Deckx L et al (2018) A systematic literature review on the association between loneliness and coping strategies. Psychol Health Med 23(8):899–916
Fancourt D, Steptoe A, Bu F (2021) Trajectories of anxiety and depressive symptoms during enforced isolation due to COVID-19 in England: a longitudinal observational study. Lancet Psychiatry 8(2):141–149
Fluharty M, Fancourt D (2021) How have people been coping during the COVID-19 pandemic? Patterns and predictors of coping strategies amongst 26,016 UK adults. BMC Psychol 9(1):107
Lazarus RS (2006) Stress and emotion: a new synthesis. Springer publishing company
Satija YK, Advani GB, Nathawat SS (1998) Influence of stressful life events and coping strategies in depression. Indian J Psychiatry 40(2):165–171
Heffer T, Willoughby T (2017) A count of coping strategies: a longitudinal study investigating an alternative method to understanding coping and adjustment. PLoS One 12(10):e0186057–e0186057
Tu PC, Yeh DC, Hsieh HC (2020) Positive psychological changes after breast cancer diagnosis and treatment: the role of trait resilience and coping styles. J Psychosoc Oncol 38(2):156–170
Xu S et al (2021) Problematic use of alcohol and online gaming as coping strategies during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mini review. Front Psych 12:685964–685964
Grossman ER, Benjamin-Neelon SE, Sonnenschein S (2020) Alcohol Consumption during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of US adults. Int J Environ Res Public Health 17(24):9189
Ogueji IA, Okoloba MM, Demoko Ceccaldi BM (2021) Coping strategies of individuals in the United Kingdom during the COVID-19 pandemic. Curr Psychol 41(11):7493–7499
Vanderbruggen N et al (2020) Self-reported alcohol, tobacco, and cannabis use during COVID-19 lockdown measures: results from a web-based survey. Eur Addict Res 26(6):309–315
Chen Y et al (2018) Age differences in stress and coping: problem-focused strategies mediate the relationship between age and positive affect. Int J Aging Hum Dev 86(4):347–363
Matud MP (2004) Gender differences in stress and coping styles. Personal Individ Differ 37(7):1401–1415
Gentry LA et al (2007) Gender differences in stress and coping among adults living in Hawaii. Calif J Health Promot 5(2):89–102
Copeland EP, Hess RS (1995) Differences in young adolescents’ coping strategies based on gender and ethnicity. J Early Adolesc 15(2):203–219
Bhui K et al (2008) Ethnicity and religious coping with mental distress. J Ment Health 17(2):141–151
Yucens B et al (2019) The association between hope, anxiety, depression, coping strategies and perceived social support in patients with chronic kidney disease. Dusunen Adam 32(1):43–51
Knowles S et al (2014) Exploring the relationships between health status, illness perceptions, coping strategies and psychological morbidity in a chronic kidney disease cohort. Am J Med Sci 348(4):271–276
Lightfoot CJ, Wilkinson TJ, Smith AC (2023) Non-pharmacological management of chronic kidney disease. Medicine 51(3):170–175
Knowles SR et al (2023) Impact of chronic kidney disease on illness perceptions, coping, self-efficacy, psychological distress and quality of life. Psychol Health Med 28(7):1963–1976
Beck JS (2020) Cognitive behavior therapy: basics and beyond. Guilford Publications
Nair D et al (2021) Psychological adaptation to serious illness: a qualitative study of culturally diverse patients with advanced chronic kidney disease. J Pain Symptom Manage 61(1):32-41.e2
Coyne E et al (2023) Achieving consensus on psychosocial and physical rehabilitation management for people living with kidney disease. Clin Kidney J 16:2185–2193
de Koning R et al (2021) Survey fatigue during the COVID-19 pandemic: an analysis of neurosurgery survey response rates. Front Surg 8:690680
Wilkinson TJ et al (2021) Determinants of patient activation and its association with cardiovascular disease risk in chronic kidney disease: a cross-sectional study. Health Expect 24(3):843–852
Magadi W et al (2022) Patient activation and its association with symptom burden and quality of life across the spectrum of chronic kidney disease stages in England. BMC Nephrol 23(1):45
Johnson ML et al (2016) Patient activation with knowledge, self-management and confidence in chronic kidney disease. J Ren Care 42(1):15–22
Vélez-Bermúdez M et al (2018) Exploring the relationship between patient activation, treatment satisfaction, and decisional conflict in patients approaching end-stage renal disease. Ann Behav Med 53(9):816–826
Gair RM et al (2019) Transforming participation in chronic kidney disease: programme report. Renal Association
Acknowledgements
This report is independent research supported by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC-EM) and Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the Stoneygate Trust, NHS, NIHR ARC-EM, Leicester BRC, or the Department of Health. We would like to acknowledge the numerous research facilitators at each site who contributed to the collection of data in this study and other research staff and students who assisted with data collection, in particular Jared Palmer and Daniel Nixon.
Funding
This research was funded by the National Institute of Health and Care Research (NIHR) Applied Research Collaboration East Midlands (ARC-EM) and the Stoneygate Trust, and supported by the NIHR Leicester Biomedical Research Centre (BRC).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
CJL, TJW, CRJ, and ACS: contributed to the research idea and study design. CJL, TJW and ACS: contributed to the generation/collection of data. CJL: performed the statistical analysis and interpretation. CJL: drafted the manuscript. All authors reviewed the manuscript. Each author contributed important intellectual content during manuscript revision and accepts responsibility for the overall work by ensuring that questions pertaining to the accuracy or integrity of any portion of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Ethical approval
Ethical approval was granted by the Leicester Research Ethics Committee (24/05/2018, ref: 18/EM/0117). The study was prospectively registered as ISRCTN84422148 in June 2018.
Human and animal rights
The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and with the national and local ethical standards.
Informed consent
All participants provided informed written consent before their enrolment in the study. All participants were given the opportunity to ask questions before completing the consent process.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lightfoot, C.J., Wilkinson, T.J., Patel, N.A. et al. Patient activation and psychological coping strategies to manage challenging circumstances during the COVID-19 pandemic in people with kidney disease. J Nephrol 37, 353–364 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-023-01851-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40620-023-01851-1