3.1. Demographic data and characteristics of LBC and NLBC group
A total of 322 LBC cases were enrolled in our study, including 236 LBC and 86 NLBC cases. Table 1 shows the demographic data for all participants. No significant between-groups differences were observed for gender, age, and number of siblings (all p values > 0.05). However, there were significant differences in parental marriage, parental education, and child attachment type (all p-values <0.01) (Table 1). Compared with NLBC, fewer LBC had a secure attachment type (Table 1). Parents of LBC had a higher rate of divorce and a lower level of education compared to parents of NLBC (Table 1).
Table 1 Demographic data and characteristics of left-behind children group and non-left-behind children group
Variable
|
|
LBC group (n=236)
|
NLBC group (n=86)
|
t or c2
|
p
|
Age (years)
|
|
14.41±0.65
|
14.47±0.68
|
-0.29
|
0.77
|
Gender
|
Male n (%)
|
125(53%)
|
43(50%)
|
0.22
|
0.64
|
|
Female n (%)
|
111(47%)
|
43(50%)
|
|
|
Number of siblings
|
No sibling n (%)
|
64(27%)
|
23(27%)
|
<0.001
|
0.95
|
|
At least one n (%)
|
172(73%)
|
63(73%)
|
|
|
Parental marital status
|
Divorce n (%)
|
34(14%)
|
3(3%)
|
7.39
|
0.01
|
|
Not divorced n (%)
|
202(86%)
|
83(97%)
|
|
|
Parental education
|
Both are less than 9 years education n (%)
|
184(78%)
|
54(63%)
|
7.53
|
0.01
|
|
One of them is more than 9 years education n (%)
|
52(22%)
|
32(37%)
|
|
|
Attachment type
|
Secure n (%)
|
24(10%)
|
27(31%)
|
21.30
|
<0.001
|
|
Insecure n (%)
|
212(90%)
|
59(69%)
|
|
|
LBC, left-behind children; NLBC, non-left-behind children.
3.2. Comparison of self-esteem, social support, and coping strategy between LBC and NLBC group
As shown in Table 2, the LBC group had lower self-esteem scores than the NLBC group (p < 0.05). The LBC group was lower than the NLBC group in total social support, subjective support, objective support, and support-seeking behavior scores (all p-values < 0.05). In terms of coping strategies, the LBC group was lower than the NLBC group in problem-solving, help-seeking, and rationalization, and the difference was significant. There was no significant difference between the two groups in other aspects of coping strategies, such as avoidance, self-accusation, and fantasy (all p-values > 0.05). However, after adjusting for the variables in Table 1 (age, gender, and attachment type of children, child number, marriage, and education of parents), only subjective support, objective support, and rationalization remained significantly different between groups.
Table 2 Comparison of self-esteem, social support, and coping strategy between the LBC and NLBC groups
Variables
|
NLBC group
(n = 86)
|
LBC group (n = 236)
|
Before adjustment
|
|
After adjustment*
|
F
|
P
|
|
F
|
P
|
Self-esteem
|
|
30.19 ± 0.47
|
28.8 ± 0.28
|
6.35
|
0.012
|
|
1.63
|
0.294
|
|
Low self-esteem (%)
|
12
|
50
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Moderate self-esteem(n)
|
49
|
141
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
High self-esteem (n)
|
25
|
45
|
|
|
|
|
|
Social support
|
|
36.55 ± 0.59
|
33.52 ± 0.36 -
|
19.52
|
<0.001
|
|
9.43
|
0.002
|
|
Subjective support
|
20.79 ± 3.23
|
19.29 ± 3.65
|
11.26
|
0.001
|
|
6.17
|
0.013
|
|
Objective support
|
7.64 ± 1.77
|
6.93 ± 1.70
|
10.66
|
0.001
|
|
5.77
|
0.017
|
|
Support-seeking behavior
|
8.12 ± 1.98
|
7.36 ± 2.01
|
8.99
|
0.003
|
|
2.48
|
0.116
|
Coping strategy
|
Problem-solving
|
2.14 ± 0.28
|
2.02 ± 0.39
|
6.65
|
0.01
|
|
2.43
|
0.120
|
|
Help-seeking
|
1.94 ± 0.43
|
1.85 ± 0.52
|
2.01
|
0.157
|
|
0.34
|
0.562
|
|
Rationalization
|
1.73 ± 0.40
|
1.61 ± 0.48
|
4.39
|
0.037
|
|
4.06
|
0.045
|
|
Avoidance
|
1.64 ± 0.42
|
1.59 ± 0.55
|
0.44
|
0.509
|
|
0.04
|
0.834
|
|
Self-accusation
|
1.42 ± 0.60
|
1.43 ± 0.60
|
0.04
|
0.84
|
|
0.01
|
0.987
|
|
Fantasy
|
1.56 ± 0.49
|
1.58 ± 0.52
|
0.04
|
0.839
|
|
1.63
|
0.202
|
LBC, left-behind children; NLBC, non-left-behind children.
*Adjusted for age, gender, and attachment type of children, child number, marriage, and education of parents
3.3. Correlation between self-esteem, social support, and coping strategy in LBC
The Spearman correlation analysis in Table 3 revealed that self-esteem was significantly positively correlated with subjective support, objective support, problem-solving, and help-seeking. In addition, subjective support was positively correlated with self-esteem and problem-solving.
Table 3. Correlations among self-esteem, social support, and coping strategy in LBC
|
1. Self-esteem
|
2. Subjective support
|
3. Objective support
|
4. Problem-solving
|
5. Rationalization
|
6. Self-accusation
|
7. Help-seeking
|
8. Fantasy
|
9. Avoidance
|
1
|
r
|
1.000
|
0.319**
|
0.198**
|
0.347**
|
-0.047
|
-0.115
|
0.194**
|
-0.006
|
-0.086
|
P
|
<0.001
|
0.002
|
<0.001
|
0.471
|
0.077
|
0.003
|
0.930
|
0.189
|
2
|
r
|
1.000
|
0.163*
|
0.382**
|
0.036
|
-0.010
|
0.159*
|
0.073
|
0.108
|
P
|
0.012
|
<0.001
|
0.579
|
0.874
|
0.014
|
0.265
|
0.099
|
3
|
r
|
1.000
|
0.142*
|
0.021
|
-0.071
|
0.106
|
0.022
|
-0.077
|
P
|
0.030
|
0.743
|
0.276
|
0.105
|
0.741
|
0.236
|
4
|
r
|
1.000
|
0.357**
|
0.225**
|
0.421**
|
0.145*
|
0.245**
|
P
|
<0.001
|
<0.001
|
<0.001
|
0.026
|
<0.001
|
5
|
r
|
1.000
|
0.513**
|
0.108
|
0.348**
|
0.429**
|
P
|
<0.001
|
0.097
|
<0.001
|
<0.001
|
6
|
r
|
1.000
|
-0.048
|
0.449**
|
0.501**
|
P
|
0.463
|
<0.001
|
<0.001
|
7
|
r
|
1.000
|
-0.028
|
0.082
|
P
|
0.673
|
0.210
|
8
|
r
|
1.000
|
0.500**
|
P
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
<0.001
|
3.4 The mediating role of self-esteem between subjective support and problem-solving tendency and effectiveness
Self-esteem can significantly mediate the relationship between subjective support and problem-solving. Evaluation of the overall and direct influence of subjective support on problem-solving ability indicated a significant effect of subjective support on problem-solving ability (all p-values < 0.001). Self-esteem was then introduced as an intermediary variable, and age, and gender as control variables into the regression equation, to calculate the indirect effect of the relationship between subjective support and problem-solving ability. The statistical significance in each path is shown in Table 4. Finally, Table 6 shows the bootstrap results of the mediating effect of self-esteem and its effect rate. The 95% CI value of the mediating effect of self-esteem did not include 0, indicating that there was a significant mediating effect, accounting for 27.1% of the total effect. Figure 1 shows an intermediary model in which self-esteem mediated subjective support and problem-solving.
Table 4. Regression Analysis of the relationship between variables in the Model
|
Self-esteem
|
|
Problem-solving
|
|
Problem-solving
|
|
B
|
t
|
P
|
|
B
|
t
|
P
|
|
B
|
t
|
P
|
Subjective support
|
0.442
|
6.906
|
<0.001
|
|
0.025
|
4.513
|
<0.001
|
|
0.035
|
6.446
|
<0.001
|
Gender
|
0.082
|
0.178
|
0.859
|
|
0.066
|
1.738
|
0.083
|
|
0.068
|
1.729
|
0.085
|
Age
|
-0.515
|
-1.476
|
0.141
|
|
-0.037
|
-1.286
|
0.199
|
|
-0.048
|
-1.626
|
0.105
|
Self-esteem
|
|
|
|
0.022
|
4.690
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
R2
|
0.134
|
|
0.181
|
|
0.124
|
F
|
16.410
|
|
17.485
|
|
14.992
|
Table 5. Bootstrap results for the mediating effect of self-esteem between subjective support and problem-solving ability
Effect type
|
Effect
|
BootSE
|
Bootstrap 95% CI
LLCI
|
Bootstrap 95% CI
ULCI
|
Effect ratio
|
Indirect effect
|
0.010
|
0.003
|
0.005
|
0.016
|
27.1%
|
Direct effect
|
0.025
|
0.006
|
0.015
|
0.036
|
72.6%
|
Total effect
|
0.035
|
0.005
|
0.025
|
0.045
|
|
3.6 The mediating role of self-esteem between subjective support and help-seeking tendency and effectiveness
Self-esteem can significantly mediate the relationship between subjective support and help-seeking. Evaluation of the overall and direct influence of subjective support on help-seeking ability indicated a significant effect of subjective support on help-seeking ability (all p-values < 0.001). We then introduced self-esteem as an intermediary variable, age, and gender as control variables into the regression equation, and calculated the indirect effect of the relationship between subjective support and help-seeking ability. The statistical significance in each path is shown in Table 6. Finally, Table 7 shows the bootstrap results of the mediating effect of self-esteem and its effect rate. The 95%CI value of the mediating effect of self-esteem did not include 0, indicating that there was a significant mediating effect, accounting for 26.1% of the total effect. Figure 2 shows an intermediary model in which self-esteem mediates subjective support and help-seeking.
Table 6. Regression Analysis of the relationship between variables in the Model
|
Self-esteem
|
|
Help-seeking
|
|
Help-seeking
|
|
B
|
t
|
P
|
|
B
|
t
|
P
|
|
B
|
t
|
P
|
Subjective support
|
0.442
|
6.906
|
<0.001
|
|
0.022
|
2.729
|
0.007
|
|
0.030
|
3.920
|
<0.001
|
Gender
|
0.082
|
0.178
|
0.859
|
|
-0.032
|
-0.590
|
0.556
|
|
-0.031
|
-0.558
|
0.577
|
Age
|
-0.515
|
-1.476
|
0.141
|
|
-0.041
|
-0.981
|
0.327
|
|
-0.050
|
-1.193
|
0.234
|
Self-esteem
|
|
|
|
0.018
|
2.660
|
0.008
|
|
|
|
|
R2
|
0.134
|
|
0.072
|
|
0.051
|
F
|
16.410
|
|
6.134
|
|
5.710
|
Table 7. Bootstrap results for the mediating effect of self-esteem between subjective support and help-seeking ability
Effect type
|
Effect
|
BootSE
|
Bootstrap 95% CI
LLCI
|
Bootstrap 95% CI
ULCI
|
Effect ratio
|
Indirect effect
|
0.008
|
0.004
|
0.001
|
0.016
|
26.1%
|
Direct effect
|
0.022
|
0.009
|
0.005
|
0.039
|
73.9%
|
Total effect
|
0.030
|
0.008
|
0.013
|
0.046
|
|
3.7 Gender differences in self-esteem, social support, and coping strategies of LBC
Table 8 summarizes the differences in self-esteem, social support, and coping strategies between male LBC (n = 125) and female LBC (n = 111). No significant difference was observed between the groups in
Terms of self-esteem, social support, problem-solving, help-seeking, rationalization, and self-accusation (all p>0.05). However, significant differences were observed between groups in avoidance and fantasy (all p< <0.05).
Table 8. Gender differences in self-esteem, social support, and coping strategies of LBC
Variables
|
Male(n=125)
|
Female(n=111)
|
t
|
P
|
|
|
Self-esteem
|
28.69±4.43
|
28.94±4.45
|
-0.43
|
0.668
|
|
Social support
|
33.55±5.57
|
33.48±5.37
|
0.10
|
0.917
|
|
|
Subjective support
|
19.21±3.68
|
19.39±3.64
|
-0.38
|
0.707
|
|
|
Objective support
|
7.10±1.95
|
6.74±1.36
|
1.69
|
0.093
|
|
|
Support-seeking behavior
|
7.39±2.00
|
7.32±2.03
|
0.26
|
0.797
|
|
Coping strategy
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Problem-solving
|
2.05±0.38
|
1.99±0.41
|
1.24
|
0.218
|
|
|
Help-seeking
|
1.82±0.57
|
1.88±0.46
|
-0.85
|
0.394
|
|
|
Rationalization
|
1.66±0.50
|
1.55±0.44
|
1.84
|
0.068
|
|
|
Avoidance
|
1.67±0.54
|
1.51±0.55
|
2.20
|
0.029
|
|
|
Self-accusation
|
1.49±0.62
|
1.37±0.58
|
1.58
|
0.116
|
|
|
Fantasy
|
1.65±0.54
|
1.49±0.48
|
2.47
|
0.014
|
|