Examines resilience and self-efficacy's role in reducing psychosomatic symptoms in military personnel, suggesting therapeutic targets.
This study examined how combat exposure, continuous traumatic stress reactions, and personal resources (resilience and general self-efficacy) relate to somatic complaints in military personnel with psychosomatic disorders, and whether resilience and self-efficacy buffer the impact of combat exposure. Participants were 107 Ukrainian service members (94% men) hospitalized in a psychoneurological department of psychosomatic disorders at a clinical hospital. They completed measures of combat exposure (CES), continuous traumatic stress (CTSR), resilience (CD-RISC-10), general self-efficacy (GSE), and somatic complaints (GBB-24). Hierarchical regressions predicted somatic complaints from CES, CTSR, resilience, and self-efficacy, controlling for age, sex, rank, and injury indicators; moderation was tested with CES × Resilience and CES × Self-efficacy terms, as well as a combined model including both moderators. Continuous traumatic stress reactions showed a strong positive association with somatic complaints and remained the most powerful predictor in all models. Combat exposure was weakly related to somatic complaints and became non-significant after adjustment. Resilience and self-efficacy correlated negatively with CTSR and somatic complaints. In multivariable analyses, the evidence was clearer for a moderating role of general self-efficacy than for resilience: higher GSE attenuated the positive link between CES and somatic symptoms, whereas the CES × Resilience interaction was not supported in this sample. Among service members with psychosomatic disorders, these findings indicate that continuous traumatic stress reactions are a central correlate of somatic symptom burden, while general self-efficacy emerges as an important protective resource. Psychosomatic rehabilitation should address ongoing traumatic stress and strengthen self-efficacy as a modifiable target within integrated care.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Кокун et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: