Al, and physiological reactions to strain differed drastically between the sexes at p = 0.004, 0.01 and 0.001, respectively. Emotional and cognitive reactions predominated in females, whereas behavioral and physiological reactions were much more prevalent in males (Table three).Table 3: Distribution and reactions to academic stressors (by gender) among respondents for the duration of examinationTotal (n = 1365) Males (n = 570) Females (n = 795) Stressors Changes High 781 (57.two) 302 (53.0) 479 (60.3) Low 584 (42.eight) 268 (47.0) 316 (39.7) Conflicts Higher 348 (25.five) 143 (25.1) 205 (25.eight) Low 1017 (74.5) 427 (74.9) 590 (74.2) Pressures High 593 (43.four) 204 (35.8) 389 (48.9) Low 772 (56.6) 366 (64.two) 406 (51.1) Frustrations Higher 418 (30.six) 211 (37.0) 207 (26.0) Low 947 (69.four) 359 (63.0) 588 (74.0) Self imposed strain High 241 (17.7) 114 (20.0) 127 (16.0) Low 1124 (82.3) 456 (80.0) 668 (84.0) Reactions Emotional Higher 462 (33.8) 168 (29.five) 294 (37.0) Standard 903 (66.2) 402 (70.five) 501 (63.0) Cognitive Higher 440 (32.2) 178 (31.2) 262 (33.0) Typical 925 (67.8) 392 (68.8) 533 (67.0) Behavioral Higher 460 (33.7) 214 (37.5) 246 (30.9) Normal 905 (66.three) 356 (62.5) 549 (69.1) Physiological Higher 535 (39.2) 265 (46.5) 270 (34.0) Standard 830 (60.8) 305 (53.five) 525 (66.0) P0.05, considerable at five ; P0.01, important at 1 ; P0.001, substantial at 0.1 P – value0.0090. 0.001 0.0010.0.0040.0.011 0.001Ethiop J Wellness Sci.Vol. 23, No.JulyCoping strategies adopted by respondents: Table 4 shows the many strategies adopted by the respondents to cope with anxiety. There have been significant variations in active, practical, and religious copings among the two sexes at p = 0.001. Avoidance and active M2I-1 biological activity distracting copingstrategies did not significantly differ between the PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21347280 two sexes. On the other hand, men adopted much more active practical (47.2 ) and active distracting (28.9 ) coping approaches than girls did, whereas girls adopted extra avoidance (33.0 ) and religious (48.7 ) coping strategies than males did.Table four: Coping approaches utilized by respondents in the course of examination Coping techniques Total (n = 1365) Active sensible Higher 539 (39.five) Low 826 (60.five) Avoidance High 423 (31.0) Low 942 (69.0) Active distracting Higher 380 (27.8) Low 985 (72.2) Religious Higher 570 (41.eight) Low 795 (58.2) P0.001, important at 0.1 Male (n = 570) 269 (47.two) 301 (52.8) 161 (28.2) 409 (71.eight) 165 (28.9) 405 (71.1) 183 (32.1) 387 (67.9) Female (n = 795) 270 (34.0) 525 (66.0) 262 (33.0) 533 (67.0) 215 (27.0) 580 (73.0) 387 (48.7) 408 (51.3) P – value 0.0010.0.476 0.001Distribution of Musculoskeletal Problems: Table 5 shows the distribution in both sexes of MSDs in accordance with the impacted body components prior to and for 
the duration of the examination. Much more situations of MSDs have been reported by respondents through than before the examination. Headneck, upper limbshoulder,trunk, and decrease backwaist disorders differed significantly in between the two periods in females (p = 0.008, 0.001, 0.002, and 0.001, respectively); whereas in males, substantial differences had been located only in headneck disorders (p = 0.003).Table 5: Gender particular prevalence of musculoskeletal problems ahead of and through examination Body distribution MSDs Prior to examination Male Female (n=139) (n=270) 29 (20.9) 89 (31.9) During examination Male (n=180) 66 (36.7) Female (n=332) 142 (42.8) p-value just before vs. for the duration of exam Male Female 0.008 0.0000.002 0.000 0.ofHeadneck 0.003 problems Shoulderupper 41(29.5) 47 (17.four) 65 (36.1) 113 (34.0) 0.261 limb disorder Trunk disorder 38 (27.4) 46 (17.0) 34 (18.9).
