Cited by 70Nursing care and researchCancer survivorship and careResilience and Mental Health

Coping, adapting or self‐managing – what is the difference? A concept review based on the neurological literature

Audulv, Åsa, Packer, Tanya, Hutchinson, Susan, Roger, Kerstin S., Kephart, George·2016·Journal of Advanced Nursing

Abstract

Aim: The aim of this study was to report: (1) an analysis of the concepts of coping, adaptation and self‐management in the context of managing a neurological condition; and (2) the overlap between the concepts. Background: The three concepts are often confused or used interchangeably. Understanding similarities and differences between concepts will avoid misunderstandings in care. The varied and often unpredictable symptoms and degenerative nature of neurological conditions make this an ideal population in which to examine the concepts. Design: Concept analysis. Data sources: Articles were extracted from a large literature review about living with a neurological condition. The original searches were conducted using SCOPUS, EMBASE, CINAHL and Psych INFO. Seventy‐seven articles met the inclusion criteria of: (1) original article concerning coping, adaptation or self‐management of a neurological condition; (2) written in English; and (3) published between 1999–2011. Methods: The concepts were examined according to Morse's concept analysis method; structural elements were then compared. Results: Coping and adaptation to a neurological condition showed statistically significant overlap with a common focus on internal management. In contrast, self‐management appears to focus on disease‐controlling and health‐related management strategies. Coping appears to be the most mature concept, whereas self‐management is least coherent in definition and application. Conclusion: All three concepts are relevant for people with neurological conditions. Healthcare teams need to be cautious when using these terms to avoid miscommunication and to ensure clients have access to all needed interventions. Viewing the three concepts as a complex whole may be more aligned with client experience.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/jan.13037

Cites

48 of 48 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Audulv, Å., Packer, T., Hutchinson, S., Roger, K. S., & Kephart, G.
Affiliations
  • Mid Sweden University (SE)
  • Dalhousie University (CA)
  • University of Manitoba (CA)
Corresponding author
Audulv, Åsa
Venue
Journal of Advanced Nursing
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-06-27
Volume
72
Issue
11
Pages
2629-2643
ISSN
  • 0309-2402 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2648
OpenAlex
W2413992781
Cited by
70
References
48
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 6 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 1
FWCI
2.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Advanced Nursing (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Public Health Agency of Canada
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Pharmacy › Nursing care and research
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
Keywords
coping, adaptation, self-management, neurological disorders, conceptual analysis, internal management, living with chronic illness, healthcare communication
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Language, Nervous System Diseases, Self Care

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review