Next Article in Journal
Bone Health in Mood Disorders: A Narrative Review about Clinical and Biological Connections
Previous Article in Journal
Violence and Child Mental Health Outcomes in Iraq: Mapping Vulnerable Areas
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Psychiatry International
Volume 5
Issue 1
10.3390/psychiatryint5010005
psychiatryint-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Neuropsychological Insights into Coping Strategies: Integrating Theory and Practice in Clinical and Therapeutic Contexts

by
Maria Theodoratou
1,2,* and
Marios Argyrides
1
1
Department of Psychology, Neapolis University, Pafos 8042, Cyprus
2
School of Social Sciences, Hellenic Open University, 26335 Patras, Greece
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Psychiatry Int. 2024, 5(1), 53-73; https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint5010005
Submission received: 17 December 2023 / Revised: 24 January 2024 / Accepted: 31 January 2024 / Published: 4 February 2024
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The primary focus of this review is to rigorously explore the application and significance of coping strategies within the domains of clinical psychology and neuropsychology. These consist of a variety of techniques, behaviors, and cognitive interventions, and their critical role in reinforcing resilience and facilitating adaptive responses to stressors has been highlighted. This study explores the complex neuropsychological links between the brain’s stress pathways and the use of coping mechanisms. The neural aspects of stress, and how they can be influenced by adaptive strategies, are detailed, illustrating the profound impact that these coping mechanisms have at a neurobiological level. Delving into the neuropsychological underpinnings, this review will shed light on how stress response pathways in the brain interact with, and can be modulated by, various coping strategies. These mechanisms are particularly salient when addressing the multifaceted challenges that are faced by individuals with neuropsychological or mental health issues. While these strategies span a broad spectrum, from introspection and cognitive reframing to behavioral activation and social support seeking, their integration and application remain diverse within clinical contexts. This review endeavors to elucidate the theoretical underpinnings of these strategies, their empirical support, and their practical implications within therapeutic interventions. Furthermore, the intricate interplay between individualized coping techniques and structured therapeutic methodologies will be examined, emphasizing the potential for a holistic treatment paradigm, thereby enhancing therapeutic outcomes and fostering individual resilience.

1. Introduction

Coping strategies, the cognitive and behavioral responses to stress, were first systematically described by Lazarus and Folkman [1]. Early psychoanalytic work established the foundation for this concept, which was later refined by empirical studies by theorists such as Pearlin and others [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Lazarus articulated coping as a dynamic transaction involving cognitive, behavioral, and emotional adjustments to stress [1,8]. Folkman extended this by introducing meaning-focused coping to complement the problem- and emotion-focused paradigms [9].
This body of research has had a significant impact on clinical and neuropsychology, underpinning methods to enhance adaptability and resilience [10,11,12,13]. Such strategies have been shown to be effective in improving outcomes in a variety of professional settings [14,15] and are particularly important for populations with special mental health needs [16].
Coping strategies span individual, interpersonal, and institutional dimensions, each of which is integral to resilience and stress management [17]. At the individual level, techniques such as cognitive reappraisal and action-oriented coping effectively reduce anxiety and improve wellbeing [18]. Interpersonally, the support of relationships and social networks is essential and has been consistently shown to benefit mental health [14]. Institutionally, organizational policies and initiatives promote mental health through access to resources and supportive work environments [19].
Within the field of mental health, clinical psychology and neuropsychology continue to innovate coping strategies for diverse populations. Clinical psychology, which focuses on psychological assessment and intervention, uses developmental and cognitive research to address mental health challenges and promote wellbeing [20,21,22]. Neuropsychology links brain structure and function to behavior and mental processes to inform interventions [23,24,25].
This review synthesizes empirical findings, theoretical frameworks, and clinical applications to delineate the complexity of coping mechanisms. It is addressed to mental health practitioners, academics, and clinicians and offers insights to refine therapeutic strategies that are tailored to individual needs within mental health fields.
The study examines coping strategies from the perspectives of clinicians, neuropsychologists, and psychiatrists in an attempt to fill identified gaps in the literature. The practical effectiveness of coping strategies, their impact on patient outcomes, and their adaptability to different patient populations are assessed. This work emphasizes the development of evidence-based practices to enhance patient care and represents an interdisciplinary synthesis involving clinical psychology, neuropsychology, and psychiatry.

2. Materials and Methods

We conducted a comprehensive literature review of coping strategies in clinical psychology, neuropsychology, and psychiatry using a broad search strategy rather than a systematic review to account for the diversity of coping across mental health disciplines. Searches were conducted in databases such as PubMed, Scopus, PsycINFO, Embase, Ebscohost, and Google Scholar, covering publications from 1980 to 2023, using keywords such as “coping strategies”, “neuropsychology”, “clinical psychology”, and “psychiatry”.
The selection criteria were deliberately inclusive to capture the diverse emergence of coping strategies in psychological, neuropsychological, and psychiatric contexts. The literature was then organized thematically to provide a balanced overview of the applications and theoretical underpinnings of coping strategies across mental health disciplines.
Our narrative review is designed to synthesize research with an emphasis on developing a conceptual overview and discussing emerging themes, rather than a comprehensive meta-analysis of data from multiple studies. Although we have provided details of the databases and criteria for included studies, we recognize the importance of reporting standards to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. To illustrate, this narrative review did not strictly adhere to a reporting standard such as PRISMA, given its exploratory and interpretative nature.

3. Results

3.1. Classification of Coping

Coping strategies are examined in this study through an integrated lens, primarily adopting Lazarus and Folkman’s [1] division into problem-focused and emotion-focused coping [26]. Problem-focused coping involves active efforts to change the stressor, utilizing neuropsychological processes such as those controlled by the prefrontal cortex, which is critical for planning and decision making [27] [Figure 1]. Emotion-focused coping, on the other hand, aims to regulate emotional responses, and involves the amygdala and its prefrontal cortex connections, which are essential for emotional regulation [28,29].
Research suggests an association between healthy neuropsychological functioning and action-oriented coping, whereas a preference for emotion-focused coping may be associated with less optimal neuropsychological health [30]. For example, individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI) exhibiting stronger executive function tend to prefer active over avoidant coping strategies, a pattern that is observed regardless of the injury severity or intelligence level [31,32]. It is important to recognize, however, that the boundary between problem-focused and emotion-focused coping is not always clear-cut, as individuals usually use a mixture of both in real-life situations.

3.1.1. The Nature and Measurement of Coping Strategies

Coping mechanisms, as opposed to defense mechanisms, are conscious, intentional strategies that are used to manage stress [33,34,35]. While coping strategies actively confront challenges and have been extensively studied in various psychological fields, defense mechanisms often operate unconsciously to reduce anxiety by distorting reality, a concept that is rooted in psychoanalytic theory [36,37,38]. The primary difference lies in their conscious use for coping and their largely unconscious nature for defense, influencing the individual’s perception of stressors and reality.

3.1.2. Tools for Systematic Understanding and Assessment

Psychological scales have been crucial in measuring the multifaceted nature of coping. Folkman and Lazarus’ Ways of Coping Scale (1988) [39] and Carver et al.’s COPE Inventory (1989) [40,41] are pioneering in this area. The COPE Inventory, in particular, distinguishes four dimensions of coping, ranging from problem-focused to avoidance strategies and including social support seeking. This tool provides a deeper understanding of individual coping preferences and is fundamental for mental health professionals assessing stress management [42].
The Brief COPE, a more concise adaptation, simplifies the assessment process and facilitates its integration into diverse cultural contexts and research settings. Its multiple language versions and empirical validations strengthen its global applicability and methodological soundness. The efficiency and practicality of the Brief COPE make it a valuable asset for large-scale studies and time-sensitive clinical settings [43].
The COPE Inventory and the Brief COPE assess individual coping differences, aiding in the identification of maladaptive strategies for potential intervention. Meanwhile, the Ways of Coping Questionnaire evaluates strategies like confrontive coping and emotional distancing. Additionally, the Toulouse Coping Scale offers a psychodynamic perspective on individual coping tactics [44]. Collectively, these instruments underscore the variability of stress responses.

3.2. Coping Strategies in Neuropsychology: A Multifaceted Exploration

3.2.1. Stress Mechanisms and Coping

Coping strategies’ effectiveness is inherently tied to individual and situational factors, with neuropsychological functions like memory and concentration significantly impacting their use [45,46,47,48,49,50]. Neuropsychology focuses on understanding how brain functions influence cognitive abilities and stress responses [51]. Stress triggers a biologically hardwired spectrum of responses that are shaped by evolutionary adaptations, with the brain playing a pivotal role in modulating these responses through stress appraisal [52].
Effective stress management hinges on executive functions that are crucial for decision making and planning, which are linked to stress appraisal and coping strategy selection. Strong executive functions suggest better stress management capabilities, contributing to cognitive resilience and life satisfaction [53,54,55]. Key brain regions, including the hippocampus, amygdala, and prefrontal cortex, coordinate stress perception and response, while chronic stress may lead to allostatic overload, affecting brain resilience and emotional regulation [56,57,58,59,60].
The interplay of oxytocin and vasopressin with human behavior, particularly with regard to stress and coping, is scientifically significant [61,62,63]. Oxytocin, known for its prosocial effects, can enhance social support and attenuate stress-related markers such as cortisol, while also influencing reward-related behaviors [64,65,66]. Research on oxytocin receptors, their dietary modulation, and the genetic and epigenetic factors underlying attachment and trauma are informing variability in stress resilience and psychopathology. These findings are critical to the development of personalized treatment strategies in the domains of the brain, psychological, and psychiatric sciences, including cognitive behavioral therapy for anxiety, which may interact with these neuropeptide pathways [67,68,69].
Allostasis, the body’s process of maintaining stability through physiological adaptations, is extremely important under stress [70]. Short-term stress responses can be beneficial for survival [71,72], but prolonged stress can lead to an “allostatic overload” that negatively impacts physical and mental health [Figure 2] Recent research is moving beyond physical effects to explore the neurobiological basis of psychological resilience and the development of stress-related disorders such as PTSD and depression. A better understanding of the neurochemical survival responses and the neural regulation of emotion, memory, and social behavior under extreme stress may revolutionize the prevention and treatment of these conditions, as well as inform the most psychologically beneficial coping strategies [73].
Neuropsychological research examines how neuropeptides such as oxytocin and vasopressin affect brain function and behavior, particularly in relation to stress and coping mechanisms. Imbalances in these systems may contribute to conditions such as depression and anxiety, which alter coping strategies. Consequently, therapies targeting these neuropeptide systems are being investigated as treatments for stress-related disorders [74,75].
For example, intranasal oxytocin is being investigated for its potential to improve social cognition and coping in conditions such as autism and social anxiety. Vasopressin, while sharing some roles with oxytocin in social behavior, primarily modulates coping by enhancing threat preparedness, influencing the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis, and affecting social behaviors ranging from bonding to aggression [76,77].
Vasopressin can promote the fight or flight response, aiding in acute stress management, but excessive activation can lead to chronic stress and related health problems. This highlights the fine line between adaptive and maladaptive coping mechanisms. In addition, cognitive processes play a central role in assessing threats and directing behavioral responses, while the pituitary and adrenal systems, including cortisol, regulate long-term stress and restore equilibrium [78,79,80,81].
A vasopressin imbalance is associated with social dysfunction and increased stress in neuropsychiatric disorders. Pharmacological targeting of vasopressin receptors may help reduce maladaptive stress responses and improve social functioning in these conditions [82,83,84]. The balance of vasopressin actions is critical for both immediate survival and long-term mental and social wellbeing.
Stressful events activate the sympathetic–adrenal–medullary (SAM) and hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axes, with regulation by the amygdala and prefrontal cortex [Figure 3]. The amygdala initiates immediate stress responses, while the prefrontal cortex manages longer-term evaluations and influences the activities of the SAM and HPA axes [Figure 4]. The SAM axis rapidly triggers physical fight or flight responses, while the HPA axis has a slower response, releasing hormones such as cortisol that regulate themselves through a feedback loop [85,86,87].
The specificity of the HPA and SAM axes in responding to and recovering from stress underlies the need to consider stressor characteristics when assessing the impact of stress biology on resilience and vulnerability [88,89]. A neuropsychological perspective on these axes may inform effective coping strategies to enhance resilience to stress-related disorders [90].

3.2.2. Coping Strategies via the Neuropsychological Approach

Cognitive Coping Strategies

The following coping mechanisms have gained prominence in neuropsychological research and practice:
  • Reappraisal involves reinterpreting a situation to change its emotional impact, engaging areas such as the prefrontal cortex, which is known for emotion regulation [91,92].
  • Problem solving uses cognitive techniques to deal with challenges that are linked to executive functions such as working memory and cognitive flexibility, often exemplified by activities such as art or organizing [93,94].
  • Distraction shifts the focus away from stressors, affecting working memory and attentional systems. It includes simple, accessible methods such as engaging with nature, movies, music, tactile activities, smells, and tastes to provide immediate sensory relief and present moment awareness [95,96].
  • Mental and physical distraction: Focusing on constructive tasks such as counting, visualizing, writing, and reminiscing can draw attention away from anxiety [97,98]. Physical activities such as dancing, walking, or doing housework not only provide distraction but also improve the environment, providing both immediate and lasting therapeutic effects [99].
  • Physical exercise: Recognized for its behavioral and mental health benefits, exercise also acts as a neuropsychological intervention [100,101]. It stimulates brain regions that are involved in memory and learning, and the release of endorphins after exercise improves one’s mood, linking physical and cognitive wellbeing [102,103,104].
  • Mindfulness: This practice is increasingly recognized in neuropsychology for its effects on brain regions that are associated with attention and awareness [104]. By anchoring awareness in the present, mindfulness provides relief from repetitive negative thoughts and can improve coping with mental health problems [105]. These strategies demonstrate how targeted activities can engage the brain’s neuroplasticity and cognitive resources to counter stress and improve mental health.

Emotional Coping Strategies

Carver and colleagues (1989) defined emotion-focused coping as including strategies such as seeking emotional support, expressing and regulating emotions, disengagement, reframing, denial, acceptance, religious involvement, and substance abstinence [106]. Emotion-focused coping strategies are frequently employed, with research indicating distinct gender-based preferences: women tend to prioritize seeking emotional support, whereas men more commonly resort to direct problem-solving approaches to manage stress [107,108]. Social support not only provides comfort but also has physiological benefits, helping to dampen stress responses and influencing brain regions that are associated with emotion regulation [109,110].
Coping strategies range from adaptive, which promote resilience and neural adaptability, to maladaptive, such as avoidance, which may temporarily reduce stress but may lead to increased distress over time [111,112,113]. Adaptive strategies are associated with positive neural patterns, while maladaptive strategies may increase the brain’s stress pathways, which may affect long-term mental health.

3.3. Coping in Clinical Conditions

3.3.1. Coping with Chronic Pain

Neuropsychology links chronic pain to the functioning of brain areas like the anterior cingulate cortex, insula, and prefrontal cortex, which influence both the physical sensation of pain and its cognitive and emotional aspects [114]. Chronic pain is not just a physical sensation; it is deeply connected to cognitive and emotional states, which are influenced by these regions [115]. Understanding the role of these areas can offer insights into how interventions might impact pain perception [116]. For instance, the prefrontal cortex, which is involved in decision making and emotional regulation, might be a target for strategies aiming to reshape one’s relationship with pain. By tapping into the neural substrates of pain, neuropsychological research paves the way for more effective, brain-based interventions that not only manage pain but also enhance the lives of those living with chronic pain [117].
Coping with pain, clinical psychological interventions primarily focus on cognitive, behavioral, and mindfulness strategies to improve the understanding of pain, reduce its psychological impact, and increase functional capacity despite its presence [118]. A crucial component of these strategies is psychoeducation, which empowers patients by providing knowledge about the nature and mechanisms of chronic pain, fostering better self-management [119,120].
While both CBT and ACT employ distinct techniques, their overarching aim is to cultivate understanding and promote behavioral change. While CBT emphasizes the transformation of maladaptive thought patterns, ACT focuses on their acceptance and the pursuit of actions that resonate with personal values [121].
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) emphasizes the role of cognitive processes in determining our emotional responses and behaviors [122]. It operates on the principle that changing maladaptive thought patterns can lead to changes in behavior and emotional responses, thereby providing tools and techniques for patients to better cope with stressors.
Cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) is rooted in the belief that the interplay between our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors dictates our mental wellbeing [123]. In essence, how we think about a situation affects our emotional response, which then influences our resulting behavior. One of the central techniques in CBT is cognitive restructuring [124,125,126]. Through this process, individuals identify and challenge negative thought patterns, replacing them with more positive or realistic ones. Behavioral activation, especially relevant for depression, introduces activities step by step to counteract the inertia that is often seen in depressed individuals [127]. For anxiety disorders, exposure therapy is commonly used, systematically exposing individuals to their feared stimuli or situations in a controlled setting [128]. Beyond these, CBT can also involve training in specific skills, such as communication or assertiveness, to enhance coping.
Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), on the other hand, merges traditional behavior therapy techniques with mindfulness strategies. Its primary goal is psychological flexibility, which encourages individuals to remain open, adaptable, and effective, even when faced with unwanted thoughts or emotions [129]. A key principle of ACT is cognitive defusion, where individuals are taught to view their thoughts as mere words rather than taking them as literal truths. For instance, rather than accepting the thought “I’m a failure” as an inherent truth, one learns to see it as just a collection of words. Acceptance, another cornerstone of ACT, involves letting thoughts, feelings, and memories flow without resistance. Paired with this is mindfulness, promoting a nonjudgmental awareness of the present moment. Central to ACT is the process of value clarification, helping individuals discern their core values in life. This understanding then guides the committed action, where individuals set and pursue goals aligned with their identified values, regardless of the personal challenges that they might face.
Additionally, it is worth noting the relevance of other therapeutic approaches such as Problem-Solving Therapy (PST) and Self-Management. PST focuses on helping individuals develop strategies to directly address and resolve the problems causing them stress, promoting proactive coping [130]. Self-Management, meanwhile, equips individuals with skills and strategies to manage their symptoms, behaviors, and overall wellbeing, making it a valuable tool in the context of chronic illnesses or long-term conditions [131].
Problem-Solving Therapy (PST) is rooted in clinical psychology and serves as a bridge to understanding how individuals interpret and act upon challenges in their environment [132]. It targets problem solving deficits to reduce psychological distress. PST enhances an individual’s ability to identify and correct maladaptive cognitive patterns, thereby building resilience and contributing to long-term mental health. The therapy aids individuals in recognizing problematic cognitive patterns, understanding their causes and effects, and subsequently developing adaptive strategies. By enhancing problem solving skills, PST not only addresses immediate issues but also fortifies the individual’s resilience, a pivotal aspect in clinical psychology’s goal of long-term mental wellbeing.
Self-Management, while rooted in clinical psychology, has significant overlaps with neuropsychology, especially when addressing conditions with neurological underpinnings. Self-management strategies empower individuals, particularly those with neurological conditions or cognitive impairments, to actively participate in managing their health and cognitive functions [133,134]. For instance, someone with a traumatic brain injury might employ self-management techniques to understand their cognitive limitations, develop compensatory strategies, and optimize their daily functioning. Emotional self-regulation, a cornerstone of self-management, is also of keen interest in both clinical psychology and neuropsychology, highlighting the intricate interplay between emotional processing regions in the brain and one’s psychological state. By fostering a proactive attitude towards health and cognition, individuals can significantly improve their quality of life, reflecting the shared objectives of both clinical psychology and neuropsychology.
Interestingly, addressing pain catastrophizing can prevent individuals from amplifying the threat of pain [135,136], while group therapy offers a supportive community to share experiences and coping techniques [137,138]. For those fearful of movement due to pain, graded exposure gradually reintroduces activity, ensuring that patients remain active and engaged in their daily lives [139].

3.3.2. Coping in Neurodegenerative Diseases

Neurodegenerative diseases, particularly conditions like Alzheimer’s Disease, lead to profound cognitive and emotional challenges that significantly impact daily life. Patients grappling with these diseases often resort to various coping strategies to navigate and adapt to the evolving landscape of their condition [140]. In the context of neurodegenerative diseases, understanding coping mechanisms requires a neuropsychological understanding of stress responses, particularly those involving the HPA axis [141]. Chronic stress leads to continuous glucocorticoid release [Figure 5]. This process can damage hippocampal neurons that are critical for memory and exacerbate cognitive decline, increasing susceptibility to diseases such as Alzheimer’s. Prolonged stress also disrupts cortisol receptors, causing cognitive and mood problems that are characteristic of neurodegeneration. These findings underscore the importance of stress management in the trajectories and coping strategies of neurodegenerative diseases.
Stress triggers the HPA axis to release cortisol, which is beneficial in the short term but harmful with prolonged exposure, damaging memory-related hippocampal neurons and increasing Alzheimer’s risk. Chronic stress also impairs cortisol-regulating brain receptors, leading to cognitive deficits and mood issues that are seen in neurodegenerative diseases [142,143,144,145,146,147]. In the face of stress, the brain employs coping mechanisms as a form of defense. When such approaches induce the desired effects, they help modulate the hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal (HPA) axis and normalize cortisol levels. Regulating the HPA is particularly important for protecting regions such as the hippocampus from potential damage [148].
Certain coping techniques, encompassing mindfulness and cognitive behavioral approaches, fortify neuroplasticity, enabling the brain to counteract the effects of stress [149].
Moreover, physical activity leads to the secretion of brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), a protein that supports the health of nerve cells and stimulates the formation of new brain cells, thereby enhancing cognitive functions. [150]. Beyond this, adaptive coping reduces oxidative stress, a known contributor to neuronal damage [151]. Coping also strengthens the prefrontal cortex (PFC), empowering it to modulate the emotional responses that are triggered by the amygdala [152]. Techniques that emphasize cognitive control, such as reframing thoughts or practicing mindfulness, amplify the PFC’s balancing influence.
On a holistic level, coping mechanisms, when applied effectively, engage multiple neurological pathways to counter the detrimental impacts of chronic stress. By fostering resilience and maintaining neurochemical equilibrium, they provide a shield against potential brain damage, underscoring the value of mental and emotional self-care in neuroprotection [153]. In the context of neurodegenerative diseases, these coping mechanisms extend to the use of methods, such as memory aids and environmental modifications. In rehabilitation, particularly following neurological or mental health setbacks, coping strategies play a pivotal role. Beyond the primary goal of regaining lost functions after a brain injury, individuals face the profound challenge of reestablishing their identity. Here, strategies such as mindfulness and cognitive restructuring become indispensable tools for adjustment. Similarly, in mental health rehabilitation, the objective is not merely symptom management but also rebuilding an individual’s rapport with themselves and their environment.
Therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) help rectify maladaptive cognitive patterns [154], while Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) fosters present-focused awareness [155]. Employing these strategies not only simplifies the recovery journey but also instills a sense of agency, guiding individuals towards psychological balance.
By studying these coping mechanisms through the lens of neuropsychology, re-searchers can understand not just the behaviors themselves but the underlying neural mechanisms that make them effective or ineffective. This understanding can then be applied in clinical settings to improve mental health treatment and outcomes.

4. Discussion

Coping mechanisms refer to the cognitive and behavioral strategies that are used to manage a stressful situation [155,156]. Several frameworks classify these mechanisms, while some preferences for coping mechanisms vary based on factors such as gender, cultural background, and personality traits [157]. The effectiveness of a coping mechanism often depends on the type of stressor. Typically, stressors within an individual’s direct control are better addressed through problem-solving approaches, while those beyond an individual’s immediate control are better managed through strategies targeting emotional regulation. Successfully responding to stressors can protect against health problems by promoting healthier lifestyle choices and minimizing harmful physiological responses to stress [158,159]. Furthermore, individuals can improve their coping skills through training in stress management or coping techniques. Ideally, coping research should focus on examining the dynamic process of coping and its development over time, rather than evaluating discrete strategies at a single point in time.
Our study offers valuable insights into the intersection of coping strategies, neuropsychology, and clinical psychology. To the best of our knowledge, this study is one of the first to draw connections between coping mechanisms and these two distinct but related areas of psychology. Previously, coping has been primarily associated with health psychology [160,161].
Through our study, a gap in the existing literature was attempted to be filled by an investigation of the relationship between coping strategies and their importance for both clinical psychology and neuropsychology. In this literature review, we have investigated how coping strategies interface with both clinical psychology, which focuses on mental health, and neuropsychology, which explores the connection between brain function and behavior. In this review, we have applied the critical work of Lazarus and Folkman to elucidate coping mechanisms through a dual lens, examining both the cognitive and emotional components and the associated neural underpinnings [162]. This integrative approach broadens our understanding of the interrelationship between neuropsychological frameworks and clinical practice [163,164]. In particular, our synthesis highlights the theoretical and clinical convergence of these fields, providing nuanced perspectives for approaching the complexities that are faced by individuals in adversity.
Our analysis illustrates a correlation between various coping behaviors and the functional roles of specific brain structures and networks, further enriching our perspective on the neurobiological foundations of these processes [165]. This neurocognitive framework indicates that specific coping strategies may be mediated by brain pathways or processes, providing an understanding of the basis for these behaviors. Problem solving encompasses more explicit cognitive processes; it involves a network of neural pathways, illustrating the brain’s use of various cognitive resources—from memory retention to mental flexibility—to combat stress [166,167]. The prefrontal cortex is critical for executive function and has been associated with coping strategies that require cognitive reappraisal. Conversely, the amygdala’s role in processing emotions suggests its involvement in emotion-focused coping, which prioritizes managing emotions [168]. These findings align with the work of Lovallo [169].
As an insightful mediator between cognitive behavior and neural function, neuropsychology provides a nuanced understanding of the intricacies of coping mechanisms [170]. It highlights the importance of specific brain regions, including the prefrontal cortex, in key psychological tasks such as managing emotions and making decisions. Thanks to the development of neuroimaging techniques, neuropsychological research has been able to identify the neural basis of different coping strategies, providing a comprehensive view of the relationship between cognitive activities, such as cognitive reappraisal, and their corresponding neural networks [171]. For instance, studies have indicated that employing effective and active coping methods, such as engaging in physical activity, results in the activation of particular neural regions, providing deeper insight into their associated neuropsychological mechanisms [172].
Consistent with our research on coping mechanisms in clinical psychology and neuropsychology, there are several studies that have provided important insights suggesting that individuals use different coping strategies depending on the context and their psychological resources [173]. Following the transactional model of stress and coping proposed by Lazarus and Folkman, this reflects the dynamic reciprocal interaction between a person and his or her environment [174,175]. Studies investigating executive functions, such as working memory and attentional control, have revealed that enhanced executive functioning can result in improved stress management and coping outcomes [176]. Executive function may have the potential to alleviate the negative effects of stress on health by reducing the severity of stress perception [177]. Cognitive reappraisal reduces stress by altering perceptions rather than external situations [178]. Executive function supports emotion regulation and diminishes negative affect [179,180]. Neuroimaging methodologies such as fMRI and PET scans uncover neural substrates of coping strategies and show how discrete brain regions are involved in copings tasks [181].
Moreover, studies on specific therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) reveal its positive impact on improving coping skills [182]. CBT employs techniques that enhance problem solving and cognitive restructuring, leading to the modification of maladaptive coping patterns.
Furthermore, resilience research proves that the brain can adjust to stressors by means of neuroplasticity [183]. Studies often examine how different coping strategies can induce alterations in brain structure and function over time [184].
Moreover, clinical research has investigated how maladaptive coping strategies may contribute to the perpetuation or exacerbation of psychological conditions, such as anxiety and depression, providing insights into the involvement of neuropsychological mechanisms in these patterns [185].
Considerable research has been carried out on the strategies that are used by people with neurological disorders, such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease, in dealing with their symptoms. These studies often investigate the correlation between neuropsychological functioning and psychological coping mechanisms [186]. These studies contribute to a comprehensive comprehension of how cognitive functions and neural processes influence coping mechanisms, highlighting the importance of incorporating neuropsychological perspectives into clinical psychology research and practice. Recent research in neuropsychology reveals the significance of diverse coping strategies, underscoring the need to view coping through a neurobiological lens to enhance effective interventions. Coping strategies in clinical psychology have progressed from conceptual theories to useful therapeutic interventions. It is important for clinicians to differentiate between adaptive and maladaptive coping approaches, as this has a crucial impact on client outcomes.
The integration of neuropsychological insights into clinical practice offers a dual advantage: clinicians obtain an understanding of the neural basis of a patient’s coping strategies, thereby enhancing their comprehension of patient behavior and encounters [187]. This strategy assures a systematic approach that prioritizes objectivity.
The convergence of neuropsychological insights and clinical application will shape the future of coping strategies research. This collaboration offers a more thorough approach to mental health, combining an understanding of the biological underpinnings of coping mechanisms with their practical application in therapeutic contexts, ensuring that interventions are scientifically sound and delivered with empathy.
Neuroimaging advances have revealed the neural foundations of coping strategies, such as the correlation between coping styles and the functional connectivity of significant brain areas, shown in studies such as Santarnecchi et al. [188]. This knowledge deepens our comprehension of resilience, susceptibility to stress disorders, and the neurobiological underpinnings of coping.
The integration of theoretical knowledge and practical application in the study of the dynamic relationship between neuropsychological processes and coping mechanisms bridges the fields of neuroscience and clinical psychology. This distinct perspective allows for the dissection and application of knowledge that has a significant impact on therapeutic interventions and overall wellbeing [189].
The neural foundation of coping strategies includes a network of brain regions, where the prefrontal cortex occupies a pivotal position to regulate emotions and respond to stressors. This consensus aligns with postulations of the prefrontal cortex’s top–bottom regulation function that buttresses stress-reactivity adaptability. Also, the neural pathways in problem sourcing and decision making underlie the brain’s toughness and flexibility, which are both crucial for effective coping [190].
Applying neuropsychological knowledge to clinical practice could transform therapies by focusing on brain mechanisms, enhancing adaptive coping, and reducing maladaptive behaviors [191,192,193]. This knowledge is valuable for designing public health programs and improving occupational health and educational strategies [194,195]. Future research is likely to integrate brain behavior understanding with personalized treatments that take into account individual and cultural differences [196,197,198,199,200].
Although significant progress has already been made in the field of coping-related neuropsychology, a promising area of future research is the consideration of individual differences. Factors such as genetics, personal history, and cultural influences may influence how neural pathways facilitate coping. Models incorporating these aspects may provide a more complete perspective on coping strategies.
This review was intended to bridge the gap between neuropsychological research and practical applications in psychiatry and neuropsychology, particularly with regard to coping strategies. It highlights the integral role of the prefrontal cortex in regulating stress responses and underscores the potential for using neuropsychological findings to develop therapeutic approaches and public health interventions. Rather than providing an exhaustive review, the goal was to synthesize key neuropsychological concepts that inform adaptive coping and to identify potential areas for future research, including the exploration of individual and cultural differences in coping mechanisms. This focused approach allows for a targeted discussion of the neural underpinnings of coping and sets the stage for subsequent, more in-depth investigations.

4.1. Implications for Practice

This review of coping strategies in clinical psychology and neuropsychology highlights several practical applications. Clinical psychologists can integrate these strategies into therapies like CBT to improve clients’ stress management skills. For example, they may teach clients to identify stressors and apply problem-solving or emotion-focused techniques accordingly. Neuropsychologists may focus on assisting clients with neurological impairments to develop coping strategies that accommodate cognitive limitations, such as using relaxation techniques to manage frustration that is associated with brain injuries.
Both disciplines can also contribute to community education, offering workshops on coping strategies for healthcare professionals, clients, and caregivers, particularly benefiting those with severe mental health challenges or communication barriers. Assessment tools like the COPE inventory should be incorporated into regular evaluations to inform personalized intervention plans. Clinicians need to remain adaptable, continually adjusting coping strategies based on client feedback and peer consultation. In essence, the incorporation of coping strategies is essential for client-centered care in clinical and neuropsychological practice, requiring an ongoing commitment to professional development and adaptability to individual client needs.

4.2. Limitations

This review has several limitations that warrant discussion, as they may have implications for the interpretation and application of our findings:
  • Heterogeneity of Studies: The studies included in this review vary in design, measures used, populations studied, and cultural contexts. While this diversity allows for a broad examination of coping strategies across different scenarios, it also poses challenges in directly comparing the effectiveness of coping mechanisms or generating meta-analytic conclusions.
  • Publication Bias: As with any review, our conclusions are subject to the limitations of the existing literature. There is an inherent potential for publication bias, where studies with positive results are more likely to be published than those with negative or null results. Despite our efforts to include a wide range of studies, this bias could influence the overall findings.
  • Cultural and Socioeconomic Representation: The majority of the studies that we re-viewed were conducted in Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) societies. Consequently, the coping strategies identified may not be universally applicable, especially in non-WEIRD populations that may employ different methods of coping.
  • Temporal and Historical Context: The temporal span of the included studies ranges across several decades. Changes over time in societal norms, economic conditions, and healthcare systems may influence both the stressors that individuals face and the coping strategies that they employ. This review may not fully capture these dynamic shifts.
  • Theoretical Frameworks: The theoretical frameworks guiding the studies in this review are varied, with some focusing on cognitive behavioral models of coping, while others may employ psychodynamic or humanistic perspectives. Our synthesis of findings must, therefore, be viewed within the context of these diverse theoretical underpinnings.
  • Scope of Research: This review is limited by the scope of the available research, which may overlook important unpublished work or research in adjacent fields. Although we attempted to conduct a comprehensive search, there is always the possibility that relevant studies have been inadvertently omitted.
  • Practical Application: While this review provides a synthesis of the research on coping strategies in clinical psychology and neuropsychology, the translation of these findings into practical clinical interventions was not the primary focus. Therefore, the review may not fully address how these strategies can be implemented in practice.
  • Comorbidity and Individual Differences: The complexity of individual psychological experiences, including comorbid conditions and individual differences, is a critical factor in how coping strategies are selected and employed. The reviewed research often does not account for the nuanced ways in which these factors interact with coping mechanisms.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, coping strategies play a central role in the fields of neuropsychology and clinical psychology, providing critical insights into the human ability to adapt and be resilient, particularly in the face of neurological and psychological challenges. This review highlights the ongoing need for research and clinical implementation, given the complexity of coping strategies. The prioritization of these aspects enriches academic discourse and has the potential to have a profound impact on individuals coping with neurological and psychological obstacles. Understanding and utilizing coping strategies goes deeper than scientific pursuits; indeed, it is fundamental to enhancing the quality of human life. Therefore, this review proposes a comprehensive approach combining empirical investigation with an emphasis on clinical implementation as a means of improving the state of the art in the field and maximizing the benefits that can be derived from these findings.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.T. and M.A.; methodology, M.T.; investigation, M.T.; resources, M.T.; data curation, M.A.; writing—original draft preparation, M.T.; writing—review and editing, M.T. and M.A.; visualization, M.T.; supervision, M.A.; project administration, M.T. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

APC was funded by Neapolis University of Pafos, Pafos, Cyprus.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. The concept of coping. In Stress, Appraisal, and Coping; Lazarus, R.S., Folkman, S., Eds.; Springer Publishing Company: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1984; ISBN 0826141927. [Google Scholar]
  2. Pearlin, L.I.; Schooler, C. The structure of coping. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1978, 19, 2–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Kobasa, S.C. Stressful life events, personality, and health: An inquiry into hardiness. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1979, 37, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Billings, A.G.; Moos, R.H. Stressful life events and symptoms: A longitudinal model. Health Psychol. 1982, 1, 99–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Steptoe, A.; Feldman, P. Neighborhood problems as sources of chronic stress: Development of a measure of neighborhood problems, and associations with socioeconomic status and health. Ann. Behav. Med. 2001, 23, 177–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Schumm, J.; Briggs-Phillips, M.; Hobfoll, S. Cumulative interpersonal traumas and social support as risk and resiliency factors in predicting PTSD and depression among inner-city women. J. Trauma. Stress 2006, 19, 825–836. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Saklofske, D.H.; Austin, E.J.; Mastoras, S.M.; Beaton, L.; Osborne, S.E. Relationships of personality, affect, emotion-al intelligence and coping with student stress and academic success: Different patterns of association for stress and success. Learn. Individ. Differ. 2012, 22, 251–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Shanan, J.; Denour, A.; Garty, I. Effects of prolonged stress on coping style in terminal renal failure patients. J. Hum. Stress 1976, 2, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Weigold, I.; Robitschek, C. Agentic personality characteristics and coping: Their relation to trait anxiety in college students. Am. J. Orthopsychiatry 2011, 81, 255–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Stevens, F.L. Emotional Regulation/Coping with Emotion. In Affective Neuroscience in Psychotherapy; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2021; pp. 112–117. [Google Scholar]
  11. Woodhead, E.L.; Cronkite, R.C.; Moos, R.H.; Timko, C. Coping Strategies Predictive of Adverse Outcomes among Community Adults. J. Clin. Psychol. 2013, 70, 1183–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hughes, J.W. Coping. In Encyclopedia of Clinical Neuropsychology; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; p. 964. [Google Scholar]
  13. Snyder, C.R. Coping; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  14. Theodoratou, M.M.; Arampatzi, K.; Tafiadis, D.; Mpoura, M. Coping Strategies of Greek Social Workers. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2006, 5, S241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Theodoratou, M.M.; Plati, M.; Tsouxli, A.; Theodoridou, O.; Fotiadou, S.; Mpekos, V. Strategies Coping with Labour Stress from Speech Therapists in Greece. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2006, 5, S192. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Theodoratou, M.M.; Tafiadis, D.; Mpekos, V.; Skiloyanni, G. Coping Strategies by the Nurse Personnel Facing the Occupational Stress. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2006, 5, S242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Łukasiewicz, J.; Kaczmarek, B.L.J. Health Care Workers Strategies For Coping with Stress. Acta Neuropsychol. 2023, 21, 387–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Riepenhausen, A.; Wackerhagen, C.; Reppmann, Z.C.; Deter, H.-C.; Kalisch, R.; Veer, I.M.; Walter, H. Positive Cognitive Reappraisal in Stress Resilience, Mental Health, and Well-Being: A Comprehensive Systematic Review. Emot. Rev. 2022, 14, 310–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Peter Terna, I., Sr. Vulnerability: Types, Causes, and Coping Mechanisms. Int. J. Sci. Manag. Stud. 2021, 4, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Theodoratou, M.; Potoglou, A.; Tamiolaki, A.; Kalaitzaki, A. The Psychological Impact of Covid on Health Care Professionals during the Third Wave. Eur. Psychiatry 2023, 66, S412–S413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Schmidt, S.; Power, M. Clinical Psychology. In Encyclopedia of Social Measurement; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 309–315. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Norcross, J.C.; VandenBos, G.R.; Freedheim, D.K. Apa Handbook of Clinical Psychology; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  23. Crespi, B.J. Evolutionary and genetic insights for clinical psychology. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2020, 78, 101857. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Berlucchi, G. Neuropsychology. In Reference Module in Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Psychology; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Rogers, S.A.; Lowe, D.A. Neuropsychology. In Encyclopedia of Sciences and Religions; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 1500–1509. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Frydenberg, E. Coping Research: Historical Background, Links with Emotion, and New Research Directions on Adaptive Pro-cesses. Aust. J. Psychol. 2014, 66, 82–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Satterfield, J.M. Coping with stress: Problem-Focused and emotion-focused strategies. In Minding the Body: Workbook; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 31–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Baker, J.P.; Berenbaum, H. Emotional Approach and Problem-Focused Coping: A Comparison of Potentially Adaptive Strategies. Cogn. Emot. 2007, 21, 95–118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Fuster, J.M. Prefrontal cortex in decision-making. In Decision Neuroscience; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; pp. 95–105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Martindale, S.L.; Morissette, S.B.; Kimbrel, N.A.; Meyer, E.C.; Kruse, M.I.; Gulliver, S.B.; Dolan, S.L. Neuropsychological functioning, coping, and quality of life among returning war veterans. Rehabil. Psychol. 2016, 61, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Brands, I.; Köhler, S.; Stapert, S.; Wade, D.; Heugten, C. How flexible is coping after acquired brain injury? A 1-year prospective study investigating coping patterns and influence of self-efficacy, executive functioning and self-awareness. J. Rehabil. Med. 2014, 46, 869–875. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Krpan, K.M.; Levine, B.; Stuss, D.T.; Dawson, D.R. Executive function and coping at one-year post traumatic brain injury. J. Clin. Exp. Neuropsychol. 2007, 29, 36–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Folkman, S.; Lazarus, R.S. Coping and Emotion. In Stress and Coping: An Anthology; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 207–227. [Google Scholar]
  34. Cramer, P. Coping and Defense Mechanisms: What’s the Difference? J. Personal. 1998, 66, 919–946. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Maricutoiu, L.P.; Crasovan, D.I. Coping and Defence Mechanisms: What Are We Assessing? Int. J. Psychol. 2014, 51, 83–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Giuseppe, M.D.; Perry, J.C.; Prout, T.A.; Conversano, C. Recent Empirical Research and Methodologies in Defense Mechanisms; Frontiers Media SA: Lausanne, Switzerland, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  37. Vaillant, G.E. Defense Mechanisms: Their Assessment in the Laboratory and in the Clinic. Contemp. Psychol. A J. Rev. 1992, 37, 13–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Lazarus, R.S.; Golden, G.Y. The Function of Denial in Stress, Coping, and Aging. In Aging; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1981; pp. 283–307. [Google Scholar]
  39. Folkman, S.; Lazarus, R.S. Ways of Coping Questionnaire (WAYS) [Database Record]; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F.; Weintraub, J.K. COPE Inventory; American Psychological Association: Washington, DC, USA, 1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Karademas, E. The adaptation of the Ways of Coping Questionnaire in the Greek language. Psychol. J. Hell. Psychol. Soc. 1998, 5, 261–273. [Google Scholar]
  42. Littman, J.A. The cope inventory: Dimensionality and relationships with approach- and avoidance-motives and positive and negative traits. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2006, 41, 273–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Carver, C.S. You want to measure coping but your protocol’s too long: Consider the brief COPE. Int. J. Behav. Med. 1997, 4, 92–100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Esparbès, S.; Sordes-Ader, F.; Tap, P. Presentation del échelle de coping: Les stratégies de coping. Journées Du Labo 1994, 89–107. [Google Scholar]
  45. Stephenson, E.; DeLongis, A. Coping Strategies. Wiley Encycl. Health Psychol. 2020, 55–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Cheng, C.; Lau, H.-P.B.; Chan, M.-P.S. Coping Flexibility and Psychological Adjustment to Stressful Life Changes: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychol. Bull. 2014, 140, 1582–1607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Walker, T.; Lim, B.K. Defense/Coping Mechanism. In Encyclopedia of Cross-Cultural School Psychology; Clauss-Ehlers, C.S., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2010. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Compas, B.E. An Agenda for Coping Research and Theory: Basic and Applied Developmental Issues. Int. J. Behav. Dev. 1998, 22, 231–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Steckler, T. The Neuropsychology of Stress. In Handbook of Stress and the Brain—Part 1: The Neurobiology of Stress; Steckler, Τ., Kalin, N.H., Reul, J.M.H.M., Eds.; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2005; pp. 25–42. [Google Scholar]
  50. Sagici, O.; Ozdogar, A.T.; Aslan, T.; Ozakbas, S. Investigation of the Relationship Between Coping With the Disease and Affecting Cognitive, Physical, and Psychosocial Factors in People with Multiple Sclerosis. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2024, acad102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sutterer, M.J.; Tranel, D. Neuropsychology and cognitive neuroscience in the fMRI era: A recapitulation of localizationist and connectionist views. Neuropsychology 2017, 31, 972–980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cohen, J.I. Stress and Mental Health: A Biobehavioral Perspective. Issues Ment. Health Nurs. 2000, 21, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Hankin, B.L.; Snyder, H.R.; Gulley, L.D.; Schweizer, T.H.; Bijttebier, P.; Nelis, S.; Toh, G.; Vasey, M.W. Understanding comorbidity among internalizing problems: Integrating latent structural models of psychopathology and risk mechanisms. Dev. Psychopathol. 2016, 28 Pt 1, 987–1012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Wolff, M.; Enge, S.; Kräplin, A.; Krönke, K.; Bühringer, G.; Smolka, M.N.; Goschke, T. Chronic Stress, Executive Functioning, and Real-life Self-control: An Experience Sampling Study. J. Personal. 2020, 89, 402–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Lee, J.; Kim, E.; Wachholtz, A. The Effect of Perceived Stress on Life Satisfaction. Korean J. Youth Stud. 2016, 23, 29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. McEwen, B.S.; Bowles, N.P.; Gray, J.D.; Hill, M.N.; Hunter, R.G.; Karatsoreos, I.N.; Nasca, C. Mechanisms of stress in the brain. Nat. Neurosci. 2015, 18, 1353–1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. McEwen, B.S.; Gianaros, P.J. Central role of the brain in stress and adaptation: Links to socioeconomic status, health, and disease. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2010, 1186, 190–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Girotti, M.; Adler, S.M.; Bulin, S.E.; Fucich, E.A.; Paredes, D.; Morilak, D.A. Prefrontal Cortex Executive Processes Affected by Stress in Health and Disease. Prog. Neuropsychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2018, 85, 161–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Linthorst, A.C.E.; Reul, J.M. Stress and the Brain: Solving the Puzzle Using Microdialysis. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 2008, 90, 163–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. de Kloet, E.R.; Joëls, M.; Holsboer, F. Stress and the brain: From adaptation to disease. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 2005, 6, 463–475. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. MacDonald, K.; MacDonald, T.M. The peptide that binds: A systematic review of oxytocin and its prosocial effects in humans. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry 2010, 18, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ferris, C.F. Vasopressin/oxytocin and aggression. In Proceedings of the Novartis Foundation Symposium, Singapore, 26–27 September 2005; pp. 190–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Jurek, B.; Neumann, I.D. The Oxytocin Receptor: From Intracellular Signaling to Behavior. Physiol. Rev. 2018, 98, 1805–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Heinrichs, M.; Baumgartner, T.; Kirschbaum, C.; Ehlert, U. Social support and oxytocin interact to suppress cortisol and subjective responses to psychosocial stress. Biol. Psychiatry 2003, 54, 1389–1398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Staudinger, M.R.; Erk, S.; Walter, H. Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortex Modulates Striatal Reward Encoding during Reappraisal of Reward Anticipation. Cereb. Cortex 2011, 21, 2578–2588. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Pedersen, C.A. Oxytocin, Tolerance, and the Dark Side of Addiction. Int. Rev. Neurobiol. 2017, 136, 239–274. [Google Scholar]
  67. Theodoratou, M.; Kougioumtzis, G.A.; Yotsidi, V.; Sofologi, M.; Katsarou, D.; Megari, K. Neuropsychological Consequences of Massive Trauma: Implications and Clinical Interventions. Medicina 2023, 59, 2128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Bradley, B.; Westen, D. The psychobiology of attachment and trauma: Some preliminary findings and implications for psychological research. J. Trauma Stress 2005, 18, 553–560. [Google Scholar]
  69. Meuret, A.E.; Twohig, M.P.; Rosenfield, D.; Hayes, S.C.; Craske, M.G. Brief cognitive-behavioral therapy for anxiety: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2012, 32, 425–443. [Google Scholar]
  70. Takayanagi, Y.; Onaka, T. Roles of Oxytocin in Stress Responses, Allostasis and Resilience. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 23, 150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Holroyd, K.A.; Lazarus, R.S. Stress, coping, and somatic adaptation. In Handbook of Stress: Theoretical and Clinical Aspects; Goldberger, L., Breznitz, S., Eds.; The Free Press: New York, NY, USA, 1982. [Google Scholar]
  72. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. Stress, Appraisal and Coping; Guilford: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  73. Bremner, J.D. Traumatic stress: Effects on the brain. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2006, 8, 445–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Cid-Jofré, V.; Moreno, M.; Reyes-Parada, M.; Renard, G.M. Role of Oxytocin and Vasopressin in Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Therapeutic Potential of Agonists and Antagonists. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 12077. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Yeo, X.Y.; Cunliffe, G.; Ho, R.C.; Lee, S.S.; Jung, S. Potentials of Neuropeptides as Therapeutic Agents for Neurological Diseases. Biomedicines 2022, 10, 343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Aguilera, G.; Rabadan-Diehl, C. Vasopressinergic regulation of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis: Implications for stress adaptation. Regul. Pept. 2000, 96, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Levy, I.; Schiller, D. Neural Computations of Threat. Trends Cogn. Sci. 2021, 25, 151–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Bielsky, I.F.; Young, L.J. Oxytocin, vasopressin, and social recognition in mammals. Peptides 2004, 25, 1565–1574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  79. Argiolas, A.; Gessa, G.L. Central functions of oxytocin and vasopressin in mammals including humans. Med. Res. Rev. 1991, 11, 119–158. [Google Scholar]
  80. Aguilera, G.; Subburaju, S.; Young, S.; Chen, J. The parvocellular vasopressinergic system and responsiveness of the hypothalamic pituitary adrenal axis during chronic stress. Prog. Brain Res. 2008, 170, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Neumann, I.D.; Landgraf, R. Balance of brain oxytocin and vasopressin: Implications for anxiety, depression, and social behaviors. Trends Neurosci. 2012, 35, 649–659. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Szczepanska-Sadowska, E.; Zera, T.; Sosnowski, P.; Cudnoch-Jedrzejewska, A.; Puszko, A.; Misicka, A. Vasopressin and related peptides; potential value in diagnosis, prognosis and treatment of clinical disorders. Curr. Drug Metab. 2017, 18, 306–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Ring, R.H. The central vasopressinergic system: Examining the opportunities for psychiatric drug development. Curr. Pharm. Des. 2005, 11, 205–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. Hudson, K. Coping complexity model: Coping stressors, coping influencing factors, and coping responses. Psychology 2016, 7, 300–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. James, K.A.; Stromin, J.I.; Steenkamp, N.; Combrinck, M.I. Understanding the relationships between physiological and psychosocial stress, cortisol and cognition. Front. Endocrinol. 2023, 14, 1085950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Stephens, M.A.; Wand, G. Stress and the HPA axis: Role of glucocorticoids in alcohol dependence. Alcohol. Res. 2012, 34, 468–483. [Google Scholar]
  87. Godoy, L.D.; Rossignoli, M.T.; Delfino-Pereira, P.; Garcia-Cairasco, N.; de Lima Umeoka, E.H. A comprehensive overview on stress neurobiology: Basic concepts and clinical implications. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2018, 12, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Smith, S.M.; Vale, W.W. The role of the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis in neuroendocrine responses to stress. Dialogues Clin. Neurosci. 2006, 8, 383–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Compas, B.E. Psychobiological processes of stress and coping: Implications for resilience in children and adolescents–comments on the papers of Romeo & McEwen and Fisher et al. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 2006, 1094, 226–234. [Google Scholar]
  90. de Souza-Talarico, J.N.; Marin, M.-F.; Sindi, S.; Lupien, S.J. Effects of Stress Hormones on the Brain and Cognition: Evidence from Normal to Pathological Aging. Dement. Neuropsychol. 2011, 5, 8–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  91. Wang, Y.-X.; Yin, B. A New Understanding of the Cognitive Reappraisal Technique: An Extension Based on the Schema Theory. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2023, 17, 1174585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Ferri, J.; Hajcak, G. Neural mechanisms associated with reappraisal and attentional deployment. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2015, 3, 17–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Fenn, K.; Byrne, M. The key principles of cognitive behavioural therapy. InnovAiT 2013, 6, 579–585. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Gabrys, R.L.; Tabri, N.; Anisman, H.; Matheson, K. Cognitive Control and Flexibility in the Context of Stress and Depressive Symptoms: The Cognitive Control and Flexibility Questionnaire. Front. Psychol. 2018, 9, 2219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Van Dillen, L.F.; Koole, S.L. Clearing the Mind: A Working Memory Model of Distraction from Negative Mood. Emotion 2007, 7, 715–723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Berto, R. The Role of Nature in Coping with Psycho-Physiological Stress: A Literature Review on Restorativeness. Behav. Sci. 2014, 4, 394–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Olson, A.K.; Eadie, B.D.; Ernst, C.; Christie, B.R. Environmental Enrichment and Voluntary Exercise Massively Increase Neurogenesis in the Adult Hippocampus via Dissociable Pathways. Hippocampus 2006, 16, 250–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Pittman, C.M.; Karle, E.M. Rewire Your Anxious Brain: How to Use the Neuroscience of Fear to End Anxiety, Panic, & Worry; Echo Point Books & Media: Brattleboro, VT, USA, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  99. Tonarelli, A.; Cosentino, C.; Tomasoni, C.; Nelli, L.; Damiani, I.; Goisis, S.; Sarli, L.; Artioli, G. Expressive writing. A tool to help health workers of palliative care. Acta Biomed. Atenei Parm. 2018, 89 (Suppl. S6), 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Theodoratou, M.; Dritsas, I.; Saltou, M.; Dimas, V.; Spyropoulos, A.; Nikolopoulou, E.; Bekos, V.; Kloni, P.; Psychogioy, A.; Valsami, O. Physical Exercise and Students’ Mental Health. Eur. Psychiatry 2016, 33, s219. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Stein, E.; Crowley, S.; Dunnam, M.; Anderson-Hanley, C. B-64 Neuropsychological Benefits of Interactive Mental and Physical Exercise. Arch. Clin. Neuropsychol. 2014, 29, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Silgailis, K. Physical Activity and Psychological Well-Being. Med. Sci. Sports Exerc. 2001, 33, 1246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Manns, J.R.; Squire, L.R. Perceptual Learning, Awareness, and the Hippocampus. Hippocampus 2001, 11, 776–782. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Wilson, C.M.; Litterini, A.J. Therapists’ Interventions among Practice Settings. In Physical Activity and Rehabilitation in Life-Threatening Illness; Routledge: London, UK, 2021; pp. 261–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Arenth, P.M. Mindfulness-Based Interventions in Neuropsychology. In Textbook of Clinical Neuropsychology, 2nd ed.; Taylor & Francis: New York, NY, USA; Routledge: London, UK, 2018; Volume 2017, pp. 1054–1067. [Google Scholar]
  106. Carver, C.S.; Scheier, M.F.; Weintraub, J.K. Assessing Coping Strategies: A Theoretically Based Approach. J. Personal. Soc. Psychol. 1989, 56, 267–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Kalaitzaki, A.E.; Tamiolaki, A.; Tsouvelas, G.; Theodoratou, M.; Konstantakopoulos, G. Gain from Pain: Exploring Vicarious Posttraumatic Growth and Its Facilitators among Health Care Workers across Two Consecutive Lockdowns during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Int. J. Stress Manag. 2024, 31, 20–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Öst, L.-G. Applied Relaxation: Description of a Coping Technique and Review of Controlled Studies. Behav. Res. Ther. 1987, 25, 397–409. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Goldwurm, G.F. Coping with Stress through Social Skills Training. In Perspectives on Research in Emotional Stress; Sudakov, K.V., Ganten, N.A., Nikolov, D., Eds.; Routledge: London, UK, 2022; pp. 251–264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Han, M.; Jiang, G.; Luo, H.; Shao, Y. Neurobiological Bases of Social Networks. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 626337. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Wante, L.; Mezulis, A.; Van Beveren, M.-L.; Braet, C. The Mediating Effect of Adaptive and Maladaptive Emotion Regulation Strategies on Executive Functioning Impairment and Depressive Symptoms among Adolescents. Child Neuropsychol. 2016, 23, 935–953. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Hofmann, S.G.; Hay, A.C. Rethinking Avoidance: Toward a Balanced Approach to Avoidance in Treating Anxiety Disorders. J. Anxiety Disord. 2018, 55, 14–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Franke, H.A. Toxic Stress: Effects, Prevention and Treatment. Children 2014, 1, 390–402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Ong, W.-Y.; Stohler, C.S.; Herr, D.R. Role of the Prefrontal Cortex in Pain Processing. Mol. Neurobiol. 2018, 56, 1137–1166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Pickering, G. Neuroplasticity in the Pain, Emotion, and Cognition Nexus. In Pain, Emotion and Cognition; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2015; pp. 73–79. [Google Scholar]
  116. King, C.D.; Keil, A.; Sibille, K.T. Chronic Pain and Perceived Stress. In Stress: Concepts, Cognition, Emotion, and Behavior; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2016; pp. 413–421. [Google Scholar]
  117. Tait, R.C. Mind Matters: Psychological Interventions for Chronic Pain. Clin. J. Pain 2005, 21, 106–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Puri, B.K.; Theodoratou, M. The Efficacy of Psychoeducation in Managing Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review. Psychiatriki 2022, 34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hadjistavropoulos, T. Self-Management of Pain. In Promoting Self-Management of Chronic Health Conditions; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 406–419. [Google Scholar]
  120. Scott, M. The CBT Treatment of Pain and Disability. In CBT for Common Trauma Responses; SAGE Publications Ltd.: London, UK, 2013; pp. 139–158. [Google Scholar]
  121. Harley, J. Bridging the Gap between Cognitive Therapy and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT). Procedia—Soc. Behav. Sci. 2015, 193, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Brown, G.K.; Mandel, A.A.; Wright, J.H. Cognitive and Behavioral Models of Mental Function and Behavior. In Tasman’s Psychiatry; Tasman, A., Riba, M.B., Alarcón, R.D., Alfonso, C.A., Kanba, S., Ndetei, D.M., Ng, C.H., Schulze, T.G., Lecic-Tosevski, D., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Hofmann, S.G. An Introduction to Modern CBT: Psychological Solutions to Mental Health Problems; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2011; ISBN 1119951410. [Google Scholar]
  124. Clark, D.A. Cognitive Restructuring. Wiley Handb. Cogn. Behav. Ther. 2013, 1–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Ekers, D.; Webster, L.; Van Straten, A.; Cuijpers, P.; Richards, D.; Gilbody, S. Behavioural activation for depression: An update of meta-analysis of effectiveness and sub group analysis. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e100100. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Craske, M.G.; Treanor, M.; Conway, C.C.; Zbozinek, T.; Vervliet, B. Maximizing exposure therapy: An inhibitory learning approach. Behav. Res. Ther. 2014, 58, 10–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  127. Lau, O.; Leung, L.; Wong, L. Cognitive behavioural techniques for changing the coping skills of patients with chronic pain. Hong Kong J. Occup. Ther. 2002, 12, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Plumb Vilardaga, J.C.; Winger, J.G.; Teo, I.; Owen, L.; Sutton, L.M.; Keefe, F.J.; Somers, T.J. Coping Skills Training and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Symptom Management: Feasibility and Acceptability of a Brief Telephone-Delivered Protocol for Patients with Advanced Cancer. J. Pain Symptom Manag. 2020, 59, 270–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Vowles, K.E.; Fink, B.C.; Cohen, L.L. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy for Chronic Pain: A Diary Study of Treatment Process in Relation to Reliable Change in Disability. J. Context. Behav. Sci. 2014, 3, 74–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Michelson, D.; Hodgson, E.; Bernstein, A.; Chorpita, B.F.; Patel, V. Problem solving as an active ingredient in indicated prevention and treatment of Youth Depression and anxiety: An integrative review. J. Adolesc. Health 2022, 71, 390–405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Theodoratou-Bekou, M.; Andreopoulou, O.; Andriopoulou, P.; Wood, B. Stress-Related Asthma and Family Therapy: Case Study. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2012, 11, 28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Iribarren, S.; Siegel, K.; Hirshfield, S.; Olender, S.; Voss, J.; Krongold, J.; Luft, H.; Schnall, R. Self-Management Strategies for Coping with Adverse Symptoms in Persons Living with HIV with HIV Associated Non-AIDS Conditions. AIDS Behav. 2018, 22, 297–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Theodoratou, M.; Bekos, V.; Puri, B. Self-Management on Chronic Diseases: Literature Review Conference: 3D International Conference on Neurobiology, Psychopharmacology and Treatment Guidance. 2013, pp. 245–246. Available online: https://www.psychiatry.gr/3icnpepatg/abstract-book.pdf (accessed on 6 December 2023).
  134. Clare, L.; Teale, J.C.; Toms, G.; Kudlicka, A.; Evans, I.; Abrahams, S.; Goldstein, L.H.; Hindle, J.V.; Ho, A.K.; Jahanshahi, M.; et al. Cognitive rehabilitation, self-management, psychotherapeutic and caregiver support interventions in progressive neurodegenerative conditions: A scoping review. NeuroRehabilitation 2019, 43, 443–471. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Sullivan, M.J.L.; Martel, M.O. Processes Underlying the Relation between Catastrophizing and Chronic Pain: Implications for Intervention. In From Acute to Chronic Back Pain; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 251–267. [Google Scholar]
  136. Sullivan, M.J.L. The Communal Coping Model of Pain Catastrophising: Clinical and Research Implications. Can. Psychol./Psychol. Can. 2012, 53, 32–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Reilimo, M.; Kaila-Kangas, L.; Shiri, R.; Laurola, M.; Miranda, H. The Effect of Pain Management Group on Chronic Pain and Pain Related Co-Morbidities and Symptoms: A Stepped-Wedge Cluster Randomized Controlled Trial. A Study Protocol. Con-Tempor. Clin. Trials Commun. 2020, 19, 100603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. George, S.Z.; Wittmer, V.T.; Fillingim, R.B.; Robinson, M.E. Comparison of Graded Exercise and Graded Exposure Clinical Outcomes for Patients with Chronic Low Back Pain. J. Orthop. Sports Phys. Ther. 2010, 40, 694–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Vambheim, S.M.; Kyllo, T.M.; Hegland, S.; Bystad, M. Relaxation Techniques as an Intervention for Chronic Pain: A Systematic Review of Randomized Controlled Trials. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Golde, T.E. Alzheimer’s Disease—The Journey of a Healthy Brain into Organ Failure. Mol. Neurodegener. 2022, 17, 18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Reul, J.M.H.M.; Collins, A.; Saliba, R.S.; Mifsud, K.R.; Carter, S.D.; Gutierrez-Mecinas, M.; Qian, X.; Linthorst, A.C.E. Glucocorticoids, epigenetic control and stress resilience. Neurobiol. Stress 2015, 1, 44–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. de Kloet, E.R.; de Kloet, S.F.; de Kloet, C.S.; de Kloet, A.D. Top-down and Bottom-up Control of Stress-coping. J. Neuroendocrinol. 2018, 31, e12675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Hill, A.R.; Spencer-Segal, J.L. Glucocorticoids and the Brain after Critical Illness. Endocrinology 2021, 162, bqaa242. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  144. Aldao, A.; Jazaieri, H.; Goldin, P.R.; Gross, J.J. Adaptive and Maladaptive Emotion Regulation Strategies: Interactive Effects during CBT for Social Anxiety Disorder. J. Anxiety Disord. 2014, 28, 382–389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Choi, E.; Gruman, J.A.; Leonard, C.M. A balanced view of mindfulness at work. Organ. Psychol. Rev. 2022, 12, 35–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Pierce, G.R.; Sarason, B.R.; Sarason, I.G.; Joseph, H.J.; Henderson, C.A. Conceptualizing and Assessing Social Support in the Context of the Family. In Handbook of Social Support and the Family; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1996; pp. 3–23. [Google Scholar]
  147. Agaibi, C.E.; Wilson, J.P. Trauma, PTSD, and Resilience. Trauma Violence Abus. 2005, 6, 195–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Sielski, R.; Rief, W.; Glombiewski, J.A. Efficacy of Biofeedback in Chronic Back Pain: A Meta-Analysis. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2016, 24, 25–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Kline, S.A.; Mega, M.S. Stress-Induced Neurodegeneration: The Potential for Coping as Neuroprotective Therapy. Am. J. Alzheimer’s Dis. Other Dement. 2020, 35, 153331752096087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Cowell, A.-M.; Buckingham, J.C. Glucocorticoids and the HPA Axis. In Glucocorticoids; Birkhäuser: Basel, Switzerland, 2001; pp. 129–145. [Google Scholar]
  151. Kim, E.J.; Pellman, B.; Kim, J.J. Stress Effects on the Hippocampus: A Critical Review. Learn. Mem. 2015, 22, 411–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Sleiman, S.F.; Henry, J.; Al-Haddad, R.; El Hayek, L.; Abou Haidar, E.; Stringer, T.; Ulja, D.; Karuppagounder, S.S.; Holson, E.B.; Ratan, R.R.; et al. Exercise Promotes the Expression of Brain Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) through the Action of the Ketone Body β-Hydroxybutyrate. eLife 2016, 5, e15092. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  153. Radley, J.; Morilak, D.; Viau, V.; Campeau, S. Chronic Stress and Brain Plasticity: Mechanisms Underlying Adaptive and Maladaptive Changes and Implications for Stress-Related CNS Disorders. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2015, 58, 79–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Laessle, R.; Schmidt, U. Stress Load, Stress Coping and Activity of HPA Axis in Adolescents with Major Depression. Austin Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2021, 5, 1–4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Cabib, S.; Campus, P.; Conversi, D.; Orsini, C.; Puglisi-Allegra, S. Functional and Dysfunctional Neuroplasticity in Learning to Cope with Stress. Brain Sci. 2020, 10, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  156. Monat, A.; Lazarus, R.S. (Eds.) Stress and Coping: An Anthology, 3rd ed.; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991. [Google Scholar]
  157. Theodoratou, M.; Kalpini-Papadopoulou, C.; Kiritsi, V.; Evagelatou, M.; Plitsi, A.; Andreopoulou, O. Novel Insights on Greek Students’ Coping Strategies. J. Psychol. Clin. Psychiatry 2017, 8, 473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Flores-Kanter, P.E.; Moretti, L.; Medrano, L.A. A Narrative Review of Emotion Regulation Process in Stress and Recovery Phases. Heliyon 2021, 7, e07218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Schultchen, D.; Reichenberger, J.; Mittl, T.; Weh, T.R.; Smyth, J.M.; Blechert, J.; Pollatos, O. Bidirectional relationship of stress and affect with physical activity and healthy eating. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2019, 24, 315–333. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Folkman, S. The Oxford Handbook of Stress, Health, and Coping; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2011; ISBN 9780195375343. [Google Scholar]
  161. Carver, C.S. Stress, Coping, and Health. In Foundations of Health Psychology; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 2006; pp. 117–144. [Google Scholar]
  162. Lazarus, R.S.; Folkman, S. The Concept of Coping. Stress and Coping: An Anthology; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; pp. 189–206. [Google Scholar]
  163. Guo, N.; Fuermaier, A.B.M.; Koerts, J.; Tucha, O.; Scherbaum, N.; Müller, B.W. Networks of Neuropsychological Functions in the Clinical Evaluation of Adult ADHD. Assessment 2022, 30, 1719–1736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  164. Kalaitzaki, A.; Tsouvelas, G.; Tamiolaki, A.; Theodoratou, M.; Konstantakopoulos, G. Secondary Traumatic Stress and Vicarious Posttraumatic Growth among nurses during three COVID-19 lockdowns in Greece. Eur. Psychiatry 2022, 65, S311–S312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Parrott, W.G.; Schulkin, J. Neuropsychology and the Cognitive Nature of the Emotions. Cogn. Amp. Emot. 1993, 7, 43–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  166. Grogans, S.E.; Bliss-Moreau, E.; Buss, K.A.; Clark, L.A.; Fox, A.S.; Keltner, D.; Cowen, A.S.; Kim, J.J.; Kragel, P.A.; MacLeod, C.; et al. The Nature and Neurobiology of Fear and Anxiety: State of the Science and Opportunities for Accelerating Discovery. Neurosci. Amp. Biobehav. Rev. 2023, 151, 105237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Prezenski, S.; Brechmann, A.; Wolff, S.; Russwinkel, N. A Cognitive Modeling Approach to Strategy Formation in Dynamic Decision Making. Front. Psychol. 2017, 8, 1335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Andolina, D.; Borreca, A. The Key Role of the Amygdala in Stress. In The Amygdala—Where Emotions Shape Perception, Learning and Memories; InTech: Nappanee, IN, USA, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  169. Lovallo, W.R. Central Nervous System Integration of the Psychological Stress Response. In Stress and Health: Biological and Psychological Interactions; Sage: Los Angeles, CA, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  170. Quirin, M.; Kent, M.; Boksem, M.A.S.; Tops, M. Integration of negative experiences: A neuropsychological framework for human resilience. Behav. Brain Sci. 2015, 38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  171. Trambaiolli, L.R.; Biazoli, C.E., Jr.; Sato, J.R. Brain Imaging Methods in Social and Affective Neuroscience: A Machine Learning Perspective. In Social and Affective Neuroscience of Everyday Human Interaction; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2022; pp. 213–230. [Google Scholar]
  172. Kim, T.-K.; Han, P.-L. Chronic stress and moderate physical exercise prompt widespread common activation and limited differential activation in specific brain regions. Neurochem. Int. 2016, 99, 252–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Achnak, S.; Vantilborgh, T. Do individuals combine different coping strategies to manage their stress in the aftermath of psychological contract breach over time? A longitudinal study. J. Vocat. Behav. 2021, 131, 103651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Lazarus, R.S. Emotion and Adaptation; Oxford University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1991; ISBN 9780190281786. [Google Scholar]
  175. Lim, T.; Thompson, J.; Tian, L.; Beck, B. A Transactional Model of Stress and Coping Applied to Cyclist Subjective Experiences. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2023, 96, 155–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Morris, M.C.; Evans, L.D.; Rao, U.; Garber, J. Executive function moderates the relation between coping and depressive symptoms. Anxiety Stress Coping 2014, 28, 31–49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Shields, G.S.; Moons, W.G.; Slavich, G.M. Better executive function under stress mitigates the effects of recent life stress exposure on health in young adults. Stress 2017, 20, 92–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Malooly, A.M.; Genet, J.J.; Siemer, M. Individual differences in reappraisal effectiveness: The role of affective flexibility. Emotion 2013, 13, 302–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Fernandes, B.; Wright, M.; Essau, C.A. The Role of Emotion Regulation and Executive Functioning in the Intervention Outcome of Children with Emotional and Behavioural Problems. Children 2023, 10, 139. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Schmeichel, B.J.; Tang, D. Individual differences in executive functioning and their relationship to emotional processes and responses. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 2015, 24, 93–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. van der Werff, S.J.A.; van den Berg, S.M.; Pannekoek, J.N.; Elzinga, B.M.; van der Wee, N.J.A. Neuroimaging resilience to stress: A review. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Bell, A.C.; D’Zurilla, T.J. Problem-solving therapy for depression: A meta-analysis. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2009, 29, 348–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Feder, A.; Fred-Torres, S.; Southwick, S.M.; Charney, D.S. The Biology of Human Resilience: Opportunities for Enhancing Resilience Across the Life Span. Biol. Psychiatry 2019, 86, 443–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Nechvatal, J.M.; Lyons, D.M. Coping changes the brain. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 2013, 7, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Woo, J.; Whyne, E.Z.; Steinhardt, M.A. Psychological distress and self-reported mental disorders: The partially mediating role of coping strategies. Anxiety Stress Coping 2023, 37, 180–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Stümpel, J.; van Munster, M.; Grosjean, S.; Pedrosa, D.J.; Mestre, T.A. Coping Styles in Patients with Parkinson’s Disease: Consideration in the Co-Designing of Integrated Care Concepts. J. Pers. Med. 2022, 12, 921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  187. Simpkins, C.A.; Simpkins, A.M. Neuroscience for Clinicians Evidence, Models, and Practice; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  188. Santarnecchi, E.; Sprugnoli, G.; Tatti, E.; Mencarelli, L.; Neri, F.; Momi, D.; Di Lorenzo, G.; Pascual-Leone, A.; Rossi, S.; Rossi, A. Brain functional connectivity correlates of coping styles. Cogn. Affect Behav. Neurosci. 2018, 18, 495–508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Maki, P. Bridging the Gap Between Neuroscience and the Social World: Theory, Research, and Mechanisms in Social Neuroscience. J. Int. Neuropsychol. Soc. 2005, 11, 792–793. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Andolina, D.; Maran, D.; Valzania, A.; Conversi, D.; Puglisi-Allegra, S. Prefrontal/Amygdala System Determines Stress Coping Behavior Through 5-HT/GABA Connection. Neuropsychopharmacology 2013, 38, 2057–2067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  191. Keng, S.-L.; Smoski, M.J.; Robins, C.J. Effects of Mindfulness on Psychological Health: A Review of Empirical Studies. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2011, 31, 1041–1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  192. Tabibnia, G.; Radecki, D. Resilience Training That Can Change the Brain. Consult. Psychol. J. Pract. Res. 2018, 70, 59–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Mueller, C.; Wesenberg, S.; Nestmann, F.; Stubbs, B.; Bebbington, P.; Raymont, V. Interventions to Enhance Coping after Traumatic Brain Injury: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Ther. Rehabil. 2018, 25, 107–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Anshel, M.H. Coping with Stress. In Encyclopedia of the Sciences of Learning; Seel, N.M., Ed.; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Kalaitzaki, A.; Theodoratou, M.; Tsouvelas, G.; Tamiolaki, A.; Konstantakopoulos, G. Coping Profiles and Their Association with Vicarious Post-traumatic Growth among Nurses during the Three Waves of the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clin. Nurs. 2024, 33, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. Theodoratou, M.; Vassilopoulou, C.; Giotsidi, V.; Tsitsas, G.; Flora, K.; Kougioumtzis, G. Psychological Distress and coping strategies of patients with Chronic Diseases. Eur. Psychiatry 2023, 66, S989–S990. [Google Scholar]
  197. Aldwin, C.M.; Brustrom, J. Theories of Coping with Chronic Stress. In Coping with Chronic Stress; Springer: Boston, MA, USA, 1997; pp. 75–103. [Google Scholar]
  198. Grassi-Oliveira, R.; Daruy-Filho, L.; Brietzke, E. New perspectives on coping in bipolar disorder. Psychol. Neurosci. 2010, 3, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Taylor, S.E.; Stanton, A.L. Coping resources, coping processes, and mental health. Ann. Rev. Clin. Psychol. 2007, 3, 377–401. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  200. Theodoratou, M.; Andreopoulou, O.; Bekos, V.; Pierrakeas, C.; Skiadopoulos, S. Culture specific stress coping strategies used to alleviate occupational stress among Greek nursing personnel. J. Med. Psychol. 2009, 1, 21. [Google Scholar]
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g001
Figure 1. Coping process model. Adapted from “A Modified Version of the Transactional Stress Concept According to Lazarus and Folkman Was Confirmed in a Psychosomatic Inpatient Sample” by Obbarius, N.; Fischer, F.; Liegl, G.; Obbarius, A.; Rose, M. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.584333.
Figure 1. Coping process model. Adapted from “A Modified Version of the Transactional Stress Concept According to Lazarus and Folkman Was Confirmed in a Psychosomatic Inpatient Sample” by Obbarius, N.; Fischer, F.; Liegl, G.; Obbarius, A.; Rose, M. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.584333.
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g001
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g002
Figure 2. Allostatic load and its impact: the role of the brain and limbic regions in stress response and disease progression. Adapted from McEwen, B.S.; Akil, H. Revisiting the Stress Concept: Implications for Affective Disorders. J. Neurosci. 2020, 40, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0733-19.2019.
Figure 2. Allostatic load and its impact: the role of the brain and limbic regions in stress response and disease progression. Adapted from McEwen, B.S.; Akil, H. Revisiting the Stress Concept: Implications for Affective Disorders. J. Neurosci. 2020, 40, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0733-19.2019.
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g002
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g003
Figure 3. Responses to stress. Adapted from Raise-Abdullahi, P.; Meamar, M.; Vafaei, A.A.; Alizadeh, M.; Dadkhah, M.; Shafia, S.; Ghalandari-Shamami, M.; Naderian, R.; Afshin Samaei, S.; Rashidy-Pour, A. Hypothalamus and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Review. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13071010.
Figure 3. Responses to stress. Adapted from Raise-Abdullahi, P.; Meamar, M.; Vafaei, A.A.; Alizadeh, M.; Dadkhah, M.; Shafia, S.; Ghalandari-Shamami, M.; Naderian, R.; Afshin Samaei, S.; Rashidy-Pour, A. Hypothalamus and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder: A Review. Brain Sci. 2023, 13, 1010. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci13071010.
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g003
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g004
Figure 4. HPA axis’s role in stress and coping. Adapted from Hinds, J.A.; Sanchez, E.R. The Role of the Hypothalamus–Pituitary–Adrenal (HPA) Axis in Test-Induced Anxiety: Assessments, Physiological Responses, and Molecular Details. Stresses 2022, 2, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2010011.
Figure 4. HPA axis’s role in stress and coping. Adapted from Hinds, J.A.; Sanchez, E.R. The Role of the Hypothalamus–Pituitary–Adrenal (HPA) Axis in Test-Induced Anxiety: Assessments, Physiological Responses, and Molecular Details. Stresses 2022, 2, 146–155. https://doi.org/10.3390/stresses2010011.
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g004
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g005
Figure 5. Limbic HPA axis regulation: the feedback role of glucocorticoids in stress response modulation. Adapted from McEwen, B.S.; Akil, H. Revisiting the Stress Concept: Implications for Affective Disorders. J. Neurosci. 2020, 40, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0733-19.2019.
Figure 5. Limbic HPA axis regulation: the feedback role of glucocorticoids in stress response modulation. Adapted from McEwen, B.S.; Akil, H. Revisiting the Stress Concept: Implications for Affective Disorders. J. Neurosci. 2020, 40, 12–21. https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0733-19.2019.
Psychiatryint 05 00005 g005
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Theodoratou, M.; Argyrides, M. Neuropsychological Insights into Coping Strategies: Integrating Theory and Practice in Clinical and Therapeutic Contexts. Psychiatry Int. 2024, 5, 53-73. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint5010005

AMA Style

Theodoratou M, Argyrides M. Neuropsychological Insights into Coping Strategies: Integrating Theory and Practice in Clinical and Therapeutic Contexts. Psychiatry International. 2024; 5(1):53-73. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint5010005

Chicago/Turabian Style

Theodoratou, Maria, and Marios Argyrides. 2024. "Neuropsychological Insights into Coping Strategies: Integrating Theory and Practice in Clinical and Therapeutic Contexts" Psychiatry International 5, no. 1: 53-73. https://doi.org/10.3390/psychiatryint5010005

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop