Examines the role of coping and resilience in caregiver management, suggesting key intervention points.
BACKGROUND: Collaborative management has been proposed as an effective strategy to enhance disease management. Common coping, positive illness perceptions, and strong resilience are crucial to enhancing collaborative management. The relationship between these variables is still unclear. AIMS: This study aimed to explore the influence of common coping on collaborative management among spousal caregivers, and to examine the mediating role of illness perception and the moderating effect of resilience. METHODS: This study was conducted on spousal caregivers of stroke survivors between May 2024 and September 2024 in Zhengzhou. Self-reported questionnaires were used to assess general information, illness perception, resilience, common coping, and collaborative management. Data analysis was performed using SPSS version 27.0. Pearson correlation and multiple linear regression analyses were conducted to examine relationships among the variables. Mediation and moderated mediation models were tested using PROCESS macro. RESULT: A total of 578 dyads completed the questionnaire. Spousal caregivers' collaborative management was at a moderate level. A significant association was found between common coping and collaborative management. Illness perception significantly mediated this relationship, while resilience moderated the path from illness perception to collaborative management. Notably, the mediating effect of illness perception was not significant among spousal caregivers with high resilience. CONCLUSION: Among spousal caregivers of stroke survivors, common coping directly influenced collaborative management. This relationship was partially mediated through illness perception, with resilience moderating the association between common coping and collaborative management. Interventions targeting common coping, illness perception, and resilience may enhance collaborative management among spousal caregivers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Xia et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: