Al, and physiological reactions to strain differed significantly among 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 more prevalent in males (Table three).Table three: Distribution and reactions to academic stressors (by gender) among respondents in the course of examinationTotal (n = 1365) Males (n = 570) Females (n = 795) Stressors Alterations High 781 (57.two) 302 (53.0) 479 (60.3) Low 584 (42.eight) 268 (47.0) 316 (39.7) Conflicts High 348 (25.5) 143 (25.1) 205 (25.8) Low 1017 (74.5) 427 (74.9) 590 (74.two) Pressures High 593 (43.4) 204 (35.eight) 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 stress High 241 (17.7) 114 (20.0) 127 (16.0) Low 1124 (82.three) 456 (80.0) 668 (84.0) Reactions Emotional Higher 462 (33.eight) 168 (29.5) 294 (37.0) Standard 903 (66.2) 402 (70.five) 501 (63.0) Cognitive High 440 (32.two) 178 (31.two) 262 (33.0) Normal 925 (67.eight) 392 (68.8) 533 (67.0) Behavioral High 460 (33.7) 214 (37.5) 246 (30.9) Regular 905 (66.3) 356 (62.5) 549 (69.1) Physiological High 535 (39.2) 265 (46.five) 270 (34.0) Normal 830 (60.eight) 305 (53.5) 525 (66.0) P0.05, substantial at 5 ; P0.01, significant at 1 ; P0.001, considerable at 0.1 P – value0.0090. 0.001 0.0010.0.0040.0.011 0.001Ethiop J Well being Sci.Vol. 23, No.JulyCoping tactics adopted by respondents: Table four shows the different methods adopted by the respondents to cope with pressure. There had been substantial variations in active, sensible, and religious copings among the two sexes at p = 0.001. Avoidance and NSC600157 site active distracting copingstrategies did not significantly differ involving the PubMed ID:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21347280 two sexes. Nonetheless, guys adopted more active practical (47.2 ) and active distracting (28.9 ) coping methods than women did, whereas women adopted additional avoidance (33.0 ) and religious (48.7 ) coping techniques than males did.Table 4: Coping approaches utilised by respondents during examination Coping techniques Total (n = 1365) Active sensible High 539 (39.five) Low 826 (60.5) Avoidance High 423 (31.0) Low 942 (69.0) Active distracting Higher 380 (27.eight) Low 985 (72.two) Religious High 570 (41.8) Low 795 (58.2) P0.001, important at 0.1 Male (n = 570) 269 (47.2) 301 (52.8) 161 (28.two) 409 (71.8) 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 – worth 0.0010.0.476 0.001Distribution of Musculoskeletal Problems: Table five shows the distribution in each sexes of MSDs in line with the impacted body parts prior to and during the examination. Much more instances of MSDs had been reported by respondents for the duration of than just before the examination. Headneck, upper limbshoulder,trunk, and reduced backwaist disorders differed considerably between the two periods in females (p = 0.008, 0.001, 0.002, and 0.001, respectively); whereas in males, important variations had been located only in headneck problems (p = 0.003).Table five: Gender precise prevalence of musculoskeletal disorders prior to and for the duration of examination Body distribution MSDs Before examination Male Female (n=139) (n=270) 29 (20.9) 89 (31.9) For the duration of examination Male (n=180) 66 (36.7) Female (n=332) 142 (42.8) p-value before vs. for the duration of exam Male Female 0.008 0.0000.002 0.000 0.ofHeadneck 0.003 problems Shoulderupper 41(29.five) 47 (17.4) 65 (36.1) 113 (34.0) 0.261 limb disorder Trunk disorder 38 (27.4) 46 (17.0) 34 (18.9).
