• Journal of Hospice and Palliative Care
• /
• v.14 no.2
• /
• pp.81-90
• /
• 2011

Purpose: This study is to understand how community members perceive past life recollection and preparation for death. Methods: Using a questionnaire, we surveyed 160 adult residents of one of the districts (gu) in Seoul, Korea. Descriptive statistics were used. Results: Participants chose their 30s and 40s as the most difficult time in their lives. The most painful experience was "an illness of a family member", followed by "trouble with a spouse", and "trouble with children". As for the most difficult social experience, "sense of loss in life" was ranked the highest. Personally, the happiest time was "accomplishment of a goal", while it was "happiness through children" in family relationship and "contribution to society through my career" in social life. As for the most regrettable experience, personally "having lived without purpose" was the highest, "not meeting my parents' expectation more" in family relationship; "not providing sufficient education" in relationship with children; "not having an occupation that I wanted" in work life, and "lack of social skills" in social life. More than 87% of the surveyed showed a positive attitude about the system of the do not resuscitate (DNS) order. For a situation where participants were supposed to have an incurable disease, "I want to be notified of the true condition" and "I want to write a will and advanced directives" ranked high, receiving more than 3.1 points out of 4. Conclusion: These results demonstrate the need for death education to provide people with an opportunity to accept their regrettable experiences in the past as part of their life. Also, this study suggests the importance of writing advanced directives for people to prepare for "death with dignity" how it can help their decision to be better respected.

• Korean Journal of Culture and Social Issue
• /
• v.23 no.2
• /
• pp.295-332
• /
• 2017

The main purpose of this research is to analyze stress, social support and coping behavior of adults based on their level of self-efficacy. A total of 899 adults (399 male; 500 female), each with a child attending either elementary and secondary school, participated in the study. The inter-rater reliability for the open-ended questionnaire utilized in the study was 93.4%, with a Kappa coefficient of .92. The range of Cronbach α for the variables measured through a quantitative method was .87~.92. The results were as follows: First, the representative responses to the question about their most painful stress experiences were, financial difficulties, child rearing and duties of workplace. The Lower Efficacy group, compared to the Upper Efficacy group, responded much more with financial difficulties related responses. There were significant differences in the level of stress symptoms according to level of self-efficacy. The Lower Efficacy group expressed stronger levels of stress symptoms when compared to the Upper Efficacy group. Second, in terms of social support, the participants responded that they received the most help from their family members, followed by none(self), and friends. When comparing the two efficacy groups, the Upper Efficacy group responded most frequently that they received social support from their family members, whereas the Lower Efficacy group indicated none. There were significant differences in the level of relational conflicts according to the level of self-efficacy. The Upper Efficacy group showed much less conflict in parent-child relations, spousal relations and relations with their boss, compared to the Lower Efficacy group. Third, for the type of social support participants received, the most frequent response was emotional support, followed by none, and advice. Relatively, when comparing the two groups with each other, the Lower Efficacy group responded more frequently with none, whereas for the Upper Efficacy group responded more frequently with advice. There were significant differences in the amount of emotional support received according to level of self-efficacy. The Upper Efficacy group received much more emotional support from their spouses and their bosses compared to the Lower Efficacy group. Fourth, the most frequently adopted coping style to stress was self-regulation, followed by direct problem solving, and nothing(none). The most frequent response for the Upper Efficacy group was direct problem solving, whereas for the Lower Efficacy group was nothing(none). There was a significant difference in coping efficiency to stress according to level of self-efficacy. The Upper Efficacy group coped more efficiently with stress than the Lower Efficacy group.