Cited by 102Spinal Cord Injury ResearchResilience and Mental HealthCancer survivorship and care

Coping effectiveness training for people with spinal cord injury: Preliminary results of a controlled trial

King, Charles, Kennedy, Paul·1999·British Journal of Clinical Psychology

Abstract

Objectives. To develop and evaluate a brief group‐based psychological intervention for improving psychological adjustment and enhancing adaptive coping following spinal cord injury. The Coping Effectiveness Training (CET) programme is grounded on the cognitive theory of stress and coping of Lazarus & Folkman (1984), and represents an original adaptation of the theory to the needs of this client group. Design. A controlled trial comparing patients receiving the CET intervention to matched controls in measures of psychological adjustment and coping was used. Methods. Nineteen intervention group participants and 19 matched controls were selected from in‐patients at a hospital‐based spinal injury rehabilitation centre. Outcome measures of depression, anxiety and coping were collected before, immediately after and six weeks after the intervention. Results. Intervention group participants showed significantly greater reductions in levels of depression ( p< .01) and anxiety ( p< .05) compared to matched controls immediately after the intervention and at six weeks follow‐up. There was no evidence of a significantly greater change in the coping strategies used by the intervention group. Participants highlighted their interactions with other group members as the most helpful aspect of the intervention. Conclusions. This evidence suggests that the CET intervention facilitated a significant improvement in psychological adjustment to spinal cord injury. It is proposed this may be understood in terms of changes in participants appraisal of the implications of spinal cord injury and of the coping skills needed to continue living meaningful and satisfying lives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1348/014466599162629

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • CET includes group session content for topics such as stress appraisal, and how to select and use primary coping strategies.

    “CET includes group session content for topics such as stress appraisal, and how to select and use primary coping strategies (e.g., problem-focused, emotion-focused, support-seeking) (Chesney et al., 1996; King & Kennedy, 1999).”

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
King, C., & Kennedy, P.
Affiliations
  • Warneford Hospital (GB)
  • Stoke Mandeville Hospital (GB)
Corresponding author
King, Charles
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Psychology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
1999-03
Volume
38
Issue
1
Pages
5-14
ISSN
  • 0144-6657 (ISSN-L)
  • 2044-8260
OpenAlex
W2011130132
Cited by
102
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
1.91
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • British Journal of Clinical Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pathology and Forensic Medicine › Spinal Cord Injury Research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Resilience and Mental Health
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Cancer survivorship and care
Keywords
spinal cord injury, psychological adjustment, adaptive coping, depression, anxiety, stress appraisal, peer interaction
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Adolescent, Adult, Aged, Anxiety, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Depression, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Psychiatric Status Rating Scales, Psychotherapy, Group, Spinal Injuries, Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

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