Validation of the Italian version of the Revised Prenatal Coping Inventory (NuPCI) and its correlations with pregnancy-specific stress.
Coping
NuPCI
NuPDQ
Pregnancy
Stress
Validation
Journal
BMC pregnancy and childbirth
ISSN: 1471-2393
Titre abrégé: BMC Pregnancy Childbirth
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100967799
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
14 Aug 2020
14 Aug 2020
Historique:
received:
26
05
2020
accepted:
06
08
2020
entrez:
18
8
2020
pubmed:
18
8
2020
medline:
21
5
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Pregnancy is a period of happiness but also of physical and psychological changes that can lead to distress. Functional coping strategies can reduce the pregnancy specific-stress. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Revised Prenatal Coping Inventory (NuPCI) in an Italian sample and to investigate how coping strategies were associated with pregnancy-specific stress. In this cross-sectional study, low-risk pregnant women (N = 211) were assessed with NuPCI, NuPDQ (Revised-Prenatal Distress Questionnaire), Brief-COPE (Coping Orientation to the Problems Experienced), and STAI (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory). The reliability of NuPCI was evaluated by assessing its internal consistency and factor structure (with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA). The concurrent validity between NuPCI and Brief-COPE and NuPDQ and STAI was investigated. Lastly, the relationship between NuPCI and NuPDQ was analyzed, as well as the ability of these scales to predict Apgar score at birth. Internal consistency of NuPCI scales was good for Planning-Preparation (ɑ Italian NuPCI has sound psychometric properties and it is a useful coping measure. NuPDQ showed also a good validity. Our results may suggest a significant role for coping strategies, particularly in modulating the condition of the newborn at birth.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
Pregnancy is a period of happiness but also of physical and psychological changes that can lead to distress. Functional coping strategies can reduce the pregnancy specific-stress. This study aimed to assess the psychometric properties of the Revised Prenatal Coping Inventory (NuPCI) in an Italian sample and to investigate how coping strategies were associated with pregnancy-specific stress.
METHODS
METHODS
In this cross-sectional study, low-risk pregnant women (N = 211) were assessed with NuPCI, NuPDQ (Revised-Prenatal Distress Questionnaire), Brief-COPE (Coping Orientation to the Problems Experienced), and STAI (State-Trait Anxiety Inventory). The reliability of NuPCI was evaluated by assessing its internal consistency and factor structure (with a Confirmatory Factor Analysis, CFA). The concurrent validity between NuPCI and Brief-COPE and NuPDQ and STAI was investigated. Lastly, the relationship between NuPCI and NuPDQ was analyzed, as well as the ability of these scales to predict Apgar score at birth.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Internal consistency of NuPCI scales was good for Planning-Preparation (ɑ
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Italian NuPCI has sound psychometric properties and it is a useful coping measure. NuPDQ showed also a good validity. Our results may suggest a significant role for coping strategies, particularly in modulating the condition of the newborn at birth.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32799847
doi: 10.1186/s12884-020-03159-5
pii: 10.1186/s12884-020-03159-5
pmc: PMC7429808
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Validation Study
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
466Références
Psychoneuroendocrinology. 2010 Jul;35(6):820-32
pubmed: 20006448
Am Psychol. 1986 Jul;41(7):813-9
pubmed: 3740641
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Mar;11(3):QC17-QC20
pubmed: 28511454
Psychosom Med. 2004 Sep-Oct;66(5):762-9
pubmed: 15385704
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2012 Jun;33(2):62-77
pubmed: 22554138
J Behav Med. 2012 Jun;35(3):253-61
pubmed: 21660588
J Psychosom Res. 1995 Jul;39(5):563-95
pubmed: 7490693
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Jun;39(2):105-111
pubmed: 28437134
Infect Dis Poverty. 2015 Sep 14;4:41
pubmed: 26370135
Res Nurs Health. 2007 Feb;30(1):61-71
pubmed: 17243108
Am J Epidemiol. 2003 Jan 1;157(1):14-24
pubmed: 12505886
J Affect Disord. 2014 Apr;159:103-10
pubmed: 24679397
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 1999 Mar;20(1):39-52
pubmed: 10212886
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2018 Jun;39(2):156-163
pubmed: 28420307
Psychol Bull. 1986 Nov;100(3):331-48
pubmed: 3797559
J Behav Med. 2020 Feb;43(1):16-33
pubmed: 31183596
Int J Behav Med. 1997;4(1):92-100
pubmed: 16250744
Annu Rev Psychol. 2011;62:531-58
pubmed: 21126184
Psychosom Med. 1993 May-Jun;55(3):234-47
pubmed: 8346332
J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989 Feb;56(2):267-83
pubmed: 2926629
J Reprod Infant Psychol. 2019 Sep;37(4):397-412
pubmed: 30773900
Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2000 Dec 15;25(24):3186-91
pubmed: 11124735
Paediatr Perinat Epidemiol. 2013 Jul;27(4):313-22
pubmed: 23772932
Health Psychol Rev. 2014;8(1):70-94
pubmed: 24489596
J Psychosom Obstet Gynaecol. 2008 Jun;29(2):97-104
pubmed: 18484440
Appl Psychol Health Well Being. 2015 Nov;7(3):249-74
pubmed: 26099234
Health Psychol. 2008 Sep;27(5):604-15
pubmed: 18823187
J Neonatal Perinatal Med. 2019;12(2):209-219
pubmed: 30741697
J Clin Diagn Res. 2017 Apr;11(4):VC04-VC07
pubmed: 28571243
Women Health. 2019 Sep;59(8):937-952
pubmed: 30836852
Minerva Ginecol. 2014 Aug;66(4):383-9
pubmed: 25020057
J Affect Disord. 2006 Jan;90(1):15-20
pubmed: 16337688