Volume 10 -
MEJDS (2020) 10: 139 |
Back to browse issues page
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Kamran Haghigh M, Hejazi M, Sobhi A. The Role of Ambiguity Tolerance in the Relationship Between Social Support and Treatment Adherence in Hepatitis Patients. MEJDS 2020; 10 :139-139
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1911-en.html
URL: http://jdisabilstud.org/article-1-1911-en.html
1- Islamic Azad University, Zanjan Branch
Abstract: (1753 Views)
Background & Objectives: Hepatitis is a major health problem worldwide and among the top 10 leading causes of death in individuals. It is among the leading causes of cancer and liver failure. Several factors contribute to the recovery of patients with hepatitis; one of which is treatment adherence. A major problem in treating hepatitis is the lack of patients’ adherence to the treatment recommendations. In addition to treatment adherence, social support provision is critical for patients with hepatitis. Furthermore, ambiguity tolerance is crucial in psychology and paramedical sciences. Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the role of ambiguity tolerance in the relationship between social support and adherence to the treatment of hepatitis.
Methods: This was a correlational study. The statistical population of the study included all patients with hepatitis referring to the Comprehensive Health Center No. 5 in Zanjan City, Iran, in the first half of 2019. The statistical population included 999 hepatitis patients; of whom, 278 individuals (based on the sample size of Krejcie & Morgan, 1970) were selected as the study sample. The study subjects were selected by stratified random sampling approach. In this study, ethical considerations related to the study subjects were observed. The following tools were used to collect the required data: the McLain's (1993) Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance (MSTAT) scale, the Social Support Scale (Sherborne & Stewatt, 1991), and the eight–item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS–8) (Morrisky et al., 2008). In this study, to investigate the direct and indirect relationship between the predicting and criterion variables, modeling was used in path analysis. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was also implemented to evaluate the linear relationship between the research variables. Besides, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to evaluate the normality of the data. In addition, the obtained data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. Furthermore, the significance level for the tests was considered to be 0.05.
Results: The current research results revealed a direct and significant relationship between social support and treatment (r=0.615, p<0.001). There was a direct and significant relationship between social support and ambiguity tolerance (r=0.234, p<0.001). There was a direct and significant relationship between ambiguity tolerance and treatment adherence (r=0.349, p<0.001). Additionally, the effect of total social support on ambiguity tolerance was significant (β=0.597, p<0.001). The direct effect of social support on treatment adherence was significant (β=0.406, p<0.001). The indirect effect of ambiguity tolerance on treatment adherence was significant (β=0.159, p=0.051).
Conclusion: Overall, the obtained data signified that social support was significantly associated with ambiguity tolerance in the treatment of hepatitis patients.
Methods: This was a correlational study. The statistical population of the study included all patients with hepatitis referring to the Comprehensive Health Center No. 5 in Zanjan City, Iran, in the first half of 2019. The statistical population included 999 hepatitis patients; of whom, 278 individuals (based on the sample size of Krejcie & Morgan, 1970) were selected as the study sample. The study subjects were selected by stratified random sampling approach. In this study, ethical considerations related to the study subjects were observed. The following tools were used to collect the required data: the McLain's (1993) Multiple Stimulus Types Ambiguity Tolerance (MSTAT) scale, the Social Support Scale (Sherborne & Stewatt, 1991), and the eight–item Morisky Medication Adherence Scale (MMAS–8) (Morrisky et al., 2008). In this study, to investigate the direct and indirect relationship between the predicting and criterion variables, modeling was used in path analysis. Pearson’s correlation coefficient was also implemented to evaluate the linear relationship between the research variables. Besides, the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test was used to evaluate the normality of the data. In addition, the obtained data were analyzed using SPSS and AMOS. Furthermore, the significance level for the tests was considered to be 0.05.
Results: The current research results revealed a direct and significant relationship between social support and treatment (r=0.615, p<0.001). There was a direct and significant relationship between social support and ambiguity tolerance (r=0.234, p<0.001). There was a direct and significant relationship between ambiguity tolerance and treatment adherence (r=0.349, p<0.001). Additionally, the effect of total social support on ambiguity tolerance was significant (β=0.597, p<0.001). The direct effect of social support on treatment adherence was significant (β=0.406, p<0.001). The indirect effect of ambiguity tolerance on treatment adherence was significant (β=0.159, p=0.051).
Conclusion: Overall, the obtained data signified that social support was significantly associated with ambiguity tolerance in the treatment of hepatitis patients.
Type of Study: Original Research Article |
Subject:
Psychology
References
1. Kebede KM, Abateneh DD, Belay AS. Hepatitis B virus infection among pregnant women in Ethiopia: a systematic review and Meta-analysis of prevalence studies. BMC Infectious Diseases. 2018;18(1):322. [DOI]
2. Roberts H, Kruszon-Moran D, Ly KN, Hughes E, Iqbal K, Jiles RB, et al. Prevalence of chronic hepatitis B virus (HBV) infection in U.S. households: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), 1988-2012. Hepatology. 2016;63(2):388–97. [DOI]
3. Fisher DG, Reynolds GL, D’Anna LH, Hosmer DW, Hardan-Khalil K. Failure to get into substance abuse treatment. J Subst Abuse Treat. 2017;73:55–62. [DOI]
4. Taherifard M, Abolghasemi A. The Role of Mindfulness, Distress Tolerance and emotional memory in predicting addiction relapse and adherence to treatment in substance abusers. Research on Addiction. 2017;11(43):211–34. [Persian] [Article]
5. Durose CL, Holdsworth M, Watson V, Przygrodzka F. Knowledge of dietary restrictions and the medical consequences of noncompliance by patients on hemodialysis are not predictive of dietary compliance. 2004;104(1):35-41. [DOI]
6. Zhou X, Zhu H, Zhang B, Cai T. Perceived social support as moderator of perfectionism, depression, and anxiety in college students. Social Behavior and Personality. 2013;41(7):1141–52. [DOI]
7. Janowski K, Steuden S, Pietrzak Pietrzak A, Dorota Krasowska D, Kaczmarek L, & et al. Social support and adaptation to the disease in men and women with psoriasis. Arch Dermatol Res. 2012;15(2):1-12. [DOI]
8. Sepehri Nezhad M, Hatamian P. The prediction of academic burnout based on the emotion dysregulation and social support in nursing students. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2018;11(1):59–65. [Persian] [Article]
9. Najafi M, Baseri A. Relationship of Perceived Social Support and Self-actualization with Life Expectancy in the Elderly in Tehran. J Educ Community Health. 2018;4(4):56–64. [Persian] [DOI]
10. Edwards LM. Measuring perceived social support in mexican american youth: psychometric properties of the multidimensional scale of perceived social support. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences. 2004;26(2):187–94. [DOI]
11. Untas A, Thumma J, Rascle N, Rayner H, Mapes D, Lopes AA, et al. The associations of social support and other psychosocial factors with mortality and quality of life in the dialysis outcomes and practice patterns study. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2011;6(1):142–52. [DOI]
12. Adams TR, Rabin LA, Da Silva VG, Katz MJ, Fogel J, Lipton RB. Social Support Buffers the Impact of Depressive Symptoms on Life Satisfaction in Old Age. Clin Gerontol. 2016;39(2):139–57. [DOI]
13. Xu H, Hou Z-J, Tracey TJG, Zhang X. Variations of career decision ambiguity tolerance between China and the United States and between high school and college. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 2016;93:120–8. [DOI]
14. Zambianchi M, Ricci Bitti PE. The Role of Proactive Coping Strategies, Time Perspective, Perceived Efficacy on Affect Regulation, Divergent Thinking and Family Communication in Promoting Social Well-Being in Emerging Adulthood. Soc Indic Res. 2014;116(2):493–507. [DOI]
15. Lotfi Azimi A, Abbasi M, Mahmoodian H, Jamali E, Rezvani S. Relationship between achievement-motive, innovation, ambiguity tolerance, self-efficacy, self-esteem, and self-actualization and entrepreneurial orientation university’s students. Journal of Innovation And Enterpreneurship. 2016;5(900109):137–48. [Persian]
16. Aalipour K, Abbasi M, Mirderikvand F. The effect of breath’s thinking strategies training on subjective well-being and tolerance of ambigutiy among female secondary high schools students in Khorramabad city. Education Strategies in Medical Sciences. 2018;11(1):1–8. [Persian] [Article]
17. Hassanzade R. Research Methods for Behavioral Sciences. Tehran: Savalan Publications; 2012. [Persian]
18. McLain DL. The MSTAT-I: A new measure of an individual’s tolerance for ambiguity. Educational and Psychological Measurement. 1993;53(1):183–9. [DOI]
19. Hashemi GS, Sanagoo A, Azimi M. The Relationship between Study Habits and Ambiguity Tolerance with Hyperactivity in Graduate Students Azad University of Gorgan. Development Strategies in Medical Education. 2017;4(2):15–26. [Persian] [Article]
20. Sherbourne CD, Stewart AL. The MOS social support survey. Soc Sci Med. 1991;32(6):705–14. [DOI]
21. Miri E. Rabete-ye beyn hemayat va dindari ba behzisti ravanshenakhti dar salmandan ba savad [The relationship between social support and religiosity with psychological well-being in the Literate elderly] [Thesis for M.Sc in Educational Sciences - Counseling and Guidance]. [Ahvaz, Iran]: Shahid Chamran University of Ahvaz; 2013. [Persian]
22. Morisky DE, Ang A, Krousel-Wood M, Ward HJ. Predictive validity of a medication adherence measure in an outpatient setting. J Clin Hypertens (Greenwich). 2008;10(5):348–54. [DOI]
23. Parpoochi B, Ahmadi M, Sohrabi F. The relationship of religiousness and social support with life satisfaction among university students. Knowledge & Research in Applied Psychology. 2014;14(53):60–8. [Persian] [Article]
24. Thoits PA. Mechanisms linking social ties and support to physical and mental health. J Health Soc Behav. 2011;52(2):145–61. [DOI]
25. Sanders KA, Whited A, Martino S. Motivational interviewing for patients with chronic kidney disease. Semin Dial. 2013;26(2):175–9. [DOI]
26. Herman JL, Stevens MJ, Bird A, Mendenhall M, Oddou G. The tolerance for ambiguity scale: Towards a more refined measure for international management research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations. 2010;34(1):58–65. [DOI]
27. Finck C, Barradas S, Zenger M, Hinz A. Quality of life in breast cancer patients: Associations with optimism and social support. Int J Clin Health Psychol. 2018;18(1):27–34. [DOI]
28. Chen Y, Feeley TH. Social support, social strain, loneliness, and well-being among older adults: An analysis of the Health and Retirement Study. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships. 2014;31(2):141–61. [DOI]
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
