Introduction: The aims of the study were to identify the impact of coping mechanisms on quality of life in hemodialysis (HD) patients and to establish the associations between stress factors and coping mechanisms, to evaluate coping mechanisms as significant predictors of physical and mental health, and to identify the effects of demographic and socioeconomic factors on coping mechanisms. Material and methods: The study included a group of 70 HD patients, 38.6% males and 61.4% females, mean age of 54.55 ±11.70. Data were collected by means of the Hemodialysis Stressors Scale for estimating stress, the Jalowiec Coping Scale (JCS) for identifying coping mechanisms, and the Short Form 36 Health Survey Questionnaire for assessing quality of life (QoL). Results: The frequency of using coping mechanisms is: optimism (M = 2.26 ±0.48), support (M = 2.16 ±0.57), confrontational coping (M = 1.96 ±0.47), one's own strength (M = 1.94 ±0.46), palliative coping (M = 1.44 ±0.54), emotive coping (M = 1.40 ±0.61), evasive coping (M = 1.39 ±0.46), fatalism (M = 1.23 ±0.74). Emotion-focused coping correlates with the following stressors: role ambiguity (r = 0.33; p = 0.004), dependence on staff (r = 0.25, p = 0.03) and daily activity (r = 0.27, p = 0.02). Conclusions: Optimism is the most commonly used defense mechanism, assessed as the most effective one. The fatalistic coping mechanism is a significant predictor of mental health, while optimism and palliative coping are significant predictors of physical health.

Introduction: The purpose of the study is to identify the level of stress among adolescents regarding the body image and the strategies that they use to cope with it. Material and methods: Two hundred and eighty-two adolescents in 10 th and 11 th grade completed three questionnaires: the Adolescent Stress Questionnaire (ASQ), the Body Image Coping Strategies Inventory (BICSI) and the Body Esteem Scale for Adolescents and Adults (BES). Results: In the order of results, factors generating stress in adolescents are: money pressure (M = 5.80 ±2.70), uncertain future (M = 3.02 ±1.00), school/ leisure conflicts (M = 2.77 ±0.96), school performance (M = 2.60 ±0.74), assuming adult responsibilities (M = 2.53 ±1.23), school attendance (M = 2.52 ±0.96), romantic relationships (M = 2.51 ±1.04), home life (M = 2.31 ±0.74), interactions with teachers (M = 2.22 ±0.80) and peer pressure (M = 2.15 ±0.83). Girls are more stressed by home life, peer pressure, an uncertain future, money pressure and adult responsibilities, while boys obtained higher values in the variable stress generated by school attendance. The most frequently used coping mechanism is positive rational acceptance (M = 2.52 ±0.64). Conclusions: The level of stress among adolescents correlates with the level of satisfaction regarding the body image.

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of physiological and psychosocial stress on the quality of life (QoL) in a group of hemodialysis (HD) patients from our center. Materials and methods: A number of 70 patients were included in the study. We used the Hemodialysis Stressors Scale, in order to estimate the stress level, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire, to evaluate the QoL. Results: The M for age = 54.5 ± 11.7 years and 38.6% were men. Patients with a low level of stress had significantly higher physical health (M = 53,52; p = 0.04) and mental health (M = 51,61; p <0.01) scores. The disease-related factors that induced the highest level of stress were the physical symptoms (1.67 ± 0.68), the food and water intake restrictions (1.64 ± 0.76), the vascular access problems (1.44 ± 0.83), the daily activity limitations (1.22 ± 0.72), the dependence on the medical staff (1.14 ± 0.74). Socio-economical and demographical factors had no effect on stress and QoL. Conclusions: The study prove the importance of stress for the QoL in HD patients. Efforts should be undertaken to minimize stress factors.

The aim of the study is to investigate the influence of physiological and psychosocial stress on the quality of life (QoL) in a group of hemodialysis (HD) patients from our center. Materials and methods: A number of 70 patients were included in the study. We used the Hemodialysis Stressors Scale, in order to estimate the stress level, and the Short Form-36 (SF-36) Health Survey Questionnaire, to evaluate the QoL. Results: The M for age = 54.5 ± 11.7 years and 38.6% were men. Patients with a low level of stress had significantly higher physical health (M = 53,52; p = 0.04) and mental health (M = 51,61; p <0.01) scores. The disease-related factors that induced the highest level of stress were the physical symptoms (1.67 ± 0.68), the food and water intake restrictions (1.64 ± 0.76), the vascular access problems (1.44 ± 0.83), the daily activity limitations (1.22 ± 0.72), the dependence on the medical staff (1.14 ± 0.74). Socio-economical and demographical factors had no effect on stress and QoL. Conclusions:  The study prove the importance of stress for the QoL in HD patients. Efforts should be undertaken to minimize stress factors. Keywords: Dialysis; stress; physical well-being; psychological well-being; quality of life;