Social support and posttraumatic growth in a longitudinal study of people living with HIV: the mediating role of positive affect

Figures & data

Table 1. Socio-medical variables in the studied final sample (N = 82) and in the drop-out group (N = 47).

Variable	Drop-out (N = 47)	Final sample (N = 82)	χ^2/T	df	p
Sex			χ^2 = .01	1	.968
Male	40 (85.1%)	70 (85.4%)
Female	7 (14.9%)	12 (14.6%)
Age (in years)			T = -.62	127	.539
Range	19–58	21–76
(M ± SD)	39.32 ± 8.42	40.50 ± 11.47
Relationship status			χ^2 = .24	1	.623
Stable relationship	26 (55.3%)	49 (59.8%)
Lack of stable relationship	21 (44.7%)	33 (40.2%)
Education			χ^2 = 3.58	2	.167
Elementary	7 (14.9%)	5 (6%)
Secondary	17 (36.2%)	26 (31.7%)
University degree	23 (48.9%)	51 (62.3%)
Employment			χ^2 = 4.26	2	.119
Full employment	38 (80.9%)	53 (64.6%)
Unemployment	6 (12.8%)	23 (28.1%)
Retirement	3 (6.4%)	6 (7.3%)
HIV/AIDS status			χ^2 = 1.73	1	.189
HIV+ only	42 (89.4%)	66 (80.5%)
HIV/AIDS	5 (10.6%)	16 (19.5%)
HIV infection duration in years			T = -.68	127	.498
Range	1–27	1–30
(M ± SD)	6.64 ± 6.58	7.39 ± 5.72
Antiretroviral Treatment (ART) duration in years			T = -.90	127	.369
Range	1–22	1–21
(M ± SD)	4.96 ± 4.77	5.76 ± 4.88
CD4 Count			T = −1.93	127	.056
Range	200–1200	200–2000
(M ± SD)	559.04 ± 225.24	645.73 ±256.23

M = Mean; SD = Standard Deviation; T = value of Independent samples t-test; df = degrees of freedom; p = Statistical Significance for Independent samples t-test for Interval Scales or Pearson’s χ² Test For Categorical Variables.

Figure 1. Preliminary model of the relationship between PTG, positive and negative affect and social support.

Table 2. Mean values of PTGI, PANAS and BSSS in the studied final sample (N = 82) and in the drop-out group (N = 47).

	Mean (SD)		Independent samples t-test
	Drop-out (N = 47)	Final sample (N = 82)	t^a	p
PTG	58.91 (24.56)	61.24 (22.19)	−.55	.582
Positive Affect	3.47 (0.61)	3.41 (.69)	.51	.613
Negative Affect	2.49 (0.98)	2.25 (.92)	1.35	.179
Perceived Support	19.30 (4.77)	18.65 (5.33)	.69	.489
Need for Support	7.17 (2.97)	7.36 (2.38)	−.38	.702
Actually Received Support	30.94 (9.13)	29.48 (10.31)	.81	.421

SD = Standard Deviation; t = Value of independent samples t-test;

p = Statistical Significance; a = df (Degrees of Freedom) = 127.

Table 3. Changes in three assessments with respect to variables in the PTGI, PANAS and BSSS with results of repeated measures ANOVA.

	Mean (SD)			p*
	T1	T2	T3	Overall	T1 vs. T2	T2 vs. T3	T1 vs. T3
PTG	61.24 (22.19)	65.39 (24.91)	63.51 (22.25)	F(2,162) = 1.53	.280	.999	.999
	Z = .52	Z = .95	Z = 1.00	p = .220
Positive Affect	3.41 (.69)	3.39 (0.80)	3.33 (.69)	F(2,162) = .51	.999	.932	.999
	Z = .72	Z = .52	Z = .91	p = .603
Negative Affect	2.25 (.92)	2.17 (0.84)	2.23 (.93)	F(1.87,151.03) = .26	.999	.999	.999
	Z = 1.30	Z = 1.34	Z = 1.02	p = .755
Perceived Support	18.65 (5.33)	19.17 (5.04)	18.68 (5.49)	F(2,162) = .48	.999	.999	.999
	Z = 1.03	Z = 1.06	Z = 1.05	p = .621
Need for Support	7.36 (2.38)	7.24 (2.92)	7.15 (2.77)	F(2,162) = .22	.999	.999	.999
	Z = 1.21	Z = 1.11	Z = 1.08	p = .804
Actually Received Support	29.48 (10.31)	31.57 (10.94)	31.85 (10.29)	F(2,162) = 2.11	.331	.237	.999
	Z = 1.08	Z = 1.25	Z = .91	p = .124

SD = Standard Deviation; T1 = First Assessment; T2 = Second Assessment; T3 = Third Assessment; Z = value of Kolmogorow-Smirnow normality test; * = p Values Of Repeated Measures Analyses Of Variance and Bonferroni’s Multiple Comparisons.

Table 4. Results of multiple regression analysis. Selection of control variables out of socio-medical data.

	Assessment	Predictor	B	Beta	t	p	ΔF	df	p	ΔR^2
Perceived Support	First	Higher Education	4.03	.37	3.56	.001	12.70	1,80	.001	.14
Need For Support	First	Sex	1.74	.24	2.23	.028	4.98	1,80	.028	.06
Actually Received Support	First	Lack Of Stable Relationship	−5.53	−.27	−2.57	.012	8.74	1,80	.004	.10
		Higher Education	4.87	.24	2.24	.028	5.03	1.79	.028	.05
Positive Affect	Second	HIV/AIDS Status	−.55	−.29	−2.73	.008	7.45	1.80	.008	.09
Negative Affect	Second	Employment	−.45	−.25	−2.31	.024	5.33	1.80	.024	.06
PTG	Third	HIV/AIDS Status	−18.17	−.35	−3.37	.001	11.37	1.80	.001	.12

Table 5. Correlations between analysed variables included in path analysis.

Variables	Assessment	1.	2.	3.	4.	5.	6.
(1) Perceived Support	First	–	.484**	.672**	.221*	−.276*	.140
(2) Need For Support	First		–	.478**	.360**	−.088	.302**
(3) Actually Received Support	First			–	.254*	−.155	.116
(4) Positive Affect	Second				–	.012	.292**
(5) Negative Affect	Second					–	−.019
(6) PTG	Third						–

*p < .05; **p < .01.

Figure 2. The final model of the relationship between PTG and perceived support, positive and negative affect with regression coefficients.

Note. T1 = First Assessment; T2 = Second Assessment; T3 = Third Assessment.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 3. The final model of the relationship between PTG and need for support, positive and negative affect with regression coefficients.

Note. T1 = First Assessment; T2 = Second Assessment; T3 = Third Assessment.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Figure 4. The final model of the relationship between PTG and actually received support, positive and negative affect with regression coefficients.

Note. T1 = First Assessment; T2 = Second Assessment; T3 = Third Assessment.*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.