Scholarlink

Background <p>Previous studies have primarily examined overall resilience about coping strategies and demographics, overlooking individual heterogeneity. This study identifies distinct resilience profiles among nursing students, examines their associations with spiritual coping strategies, and determines demographic factors associated with these profiles.</p> Method <p>A cross-sectional study of 1,223 nursing students was conducted using convenience sampling from May 13 to 24, 2024. Latent profile analysis identified resilience subgroups, while the Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars approach assessed how spiritual coping strategies varied across profiles. The Three-Step Approach for Auxiliary Variables evaluated demographic predictors.</p> Result <p>Four resilience profiles emerged: low resilience-low strength (Profile 1), low resilience-balanced development (Profile 2), high resilience-balanced development (Profile 3), and high resilience-high tenacity (Profile 4). Positive spiritual coping strategies demonstrated progressively increasing mean scores, which were statistically significant from Profile 1 to 4. In negative spiritual coping strategies, the mean scores decreased progressively from Profile 1 to 3, with each decrease being statistically significant. Female students were likelier in Profiles 1 (β = -1.01, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05), 2 (β = -1.02, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001), and 3 (β = -0.73, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) compared to Profile 4; Students with leadership experience were more often found in Profiles 3 (β = 0.66, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.001) and 4 (β = 0.74, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.01) compared to Profile 2, and students who live in urban areas were more likely to belong to Profile 4 than Profile 1 (β = 0.77, <i>p</i> &lt; 0.05).</p> Conclusion <p>There was notable individual heterogeneity in resilience among students, with distinct differences in the use of spiritual coping strategies across these profiles. Future educational interventions promoting positive spiritual coping strategies could consider resilience as a core element. The primary focus of future resilience research and education should be on female students living in rural areas and students without leadership experience during college.</p> Clinical trial number <p>Not applicable.</p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Factors influencing resilience and its relationship with spiritual coping strategies among nursing college students: a latent profile analysis

  • 期刊论文

  • 出版模式：

    开放获取

  • 发表日期：

    2025年7月3日

查看全文
  • Shuang Hu,
  • Siying Liu,
  • Qizhi Yang,
  • Ting Zhao,
  • Batool Shumaila,
  • Yajing Xian,
  • Hongyang Liu,
  • Dandan Xu,
  • Huiping Hu,
  • Xianhong Li

摘要

Background

Previous studies have primarily examined overall resilience about coping strategies and demographics, overlooking individual heterogeneity. This study identifies distinct resilience profiles among nursing students, examines their associations with spiritual coping strategies, and determines demographic factors associated with these profiles.

Method

A cross-sectional study of 1,223 nursing students was conducted using convenience sampling from May 13 to 24, 2024. Latent profile analysis identified resilience subgroups, while the Bolck-Croon-Hagenaars approach assessed how spiritual coping strategies varied across profiles. The Three-Step Approach for Auxiliary Variables evaluated demographic predictors.

Result

Four resilience profiles emerged: low resilience-low strength (Profile 1), low resilience-balanced development (Profile 2), high resilience-balanced development (Profile 3), and high resilience-high tenacity (Profile 4). Positive spiritual coping strategies demonstrated progressively increasing mean scores, which were statistically significant from Profile 1 to 4. In negative spiritual coping strategies, the mean scores decreased progressively from Profile 1 to 3, with each decrease being statistically significant. Female students were likelier in Profiles 1 (β = -1.01, p < 0.05), 2 (β = -1.02, p < 0.001), and 3 (β = -0.73, p < 0.01) compared to Profile 4; Students with leadership experience were more often found in Profiles 3 (β = 0.66, p < 0.001) and 4 (β = 0.74, p < 0.01) compared to Profile 2, and students who live in urban areas were more likely to belong to Profile 4 than Profile 1 (β = 0.77, p < 0.05).

Conclusion

There was notable individual heterogeneity in resilience among students, with distinct differences in the use of spiritual coping strategies across these profiles. Future educational interventions promoting positive spiritual coping strategies could consider resilience as a core element. The primary focus of future resilience research and education should be on female students living in rural areas and students without leadership experience during college.

Clinical trial number

Not applicable.