The protective roles of coping self-efficacy and social support for posttraumatic stress during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVE: This study examined the roles of social support and coping self-efficacy (CSE) in attenuating posttraumatic stress (PTS) symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic among a nonclinical university student sample. METHOD: Participants (n = 610; 59% female) completed questionaries assessing psychological distress (Kessler Psychological Distress Scale) at baseline and 6-month follow-up, and social support (Interpersonal Support Evaluation List-12), CSE Scale, and PTS symptoms (Impact of Event Scale-Revised) at 6 months. A path analysis was conducted using SPSS Amos to examine the direct and indirect pathways from psychological distress to PTS symptoms that are accounted for by social support and CSE, controlling for gender. RESULTS: All direct effects in the path analysis were significant except for the relationship between social support and PTS symptoms. Notably, CSE was directly related to PTS symptoms (CSE: ß = -.30, p < .001). There was a significant indirect effect of early psychological distress on PTS symptoms 6 months into the pandemic through social support and CSE (ß = .14, p < .001). CONCLUSIONS: Individuals with higher levels of social support are more likely to have greater confidence in their coping capabilities, which helps to explain PTS symptom severity after controlling for initial levels of psychological distress and gender. These findings suggest that following a potentially traumatic event, CSE may be one factor to screen for to better identify individuals who are at higher risk for significant psychological difficulties and may benefit from interventions that bolster protective factors. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Psychological distress of college students during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Objectives To assess levels of psychological distress among a group of US undergraduate college students during the initial phases of the novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. Methods: All undergraduates at Kent State University were surveyed in three randomly selected cohorts on March 18, March 25, and April 1, yielding 3924 valid responses for the weighted dataset (73.8% female, 88.9% White). Distress was assessed using the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K6). Data were weighted using known population counts. Results: K6 scores averaged 8.19 ± 5.9, with 44.3% in the moderately elevated range and 23.8% above the cutoff for severe psychological distress.Conclusions: A high proportion of undergraduate university students reported elevated psychological distress as the COVID-19 pandemic unfolded. K6 scores appeared higher than averages from comparison samples. Targeted surveillance can inform public health in mitigating threats to mental health conferred by pandemics. Colleges and universities should anticipate sharply elevated psychological distress during and after the COVID-19 pandemic.

Distress and Prevention Behaviors During the COVID-19 Pandemic Among College Students: the Moderating Role of Resilience.

BACKGROUND: Pandemics can generate considerable distress, which can affect prevention behaviors. Resilience may buffer the negative effects of distress on engagement in relevant prevention behaviors, which may also hold true for COVID-19 prevention behaviors. The objective of the current study was to evaluate whether resilience moderated the relationship between distress and COVID-19 prevention behaviors early in the pandemic. METHODS: Data were collected via surveys in which all students at a large midwestern university were emailed invitations beginning March 18, 2020. Surveys were completed by 5,530 individuals. In addition to demographic questions and items about COVID-19 prevention behaviors, distress was assessed using the K6 Distress Scale and resilience using the Brief Resilience Scale. Data were analyzed using moderator regression analysis. RESULTS: Resilience moderates the effects from distress to prevention behaviors, such that the relationship was stronger for individuals with higher resilience than for individuals with lower resilience. When resilience was one standard deviation below the mean, at the mean value of resilience, and when resilience was one standard deviation above the mean, there was a significant positive relationship between distress and COVID-19 prevention behaviors. However, the relationship was strongest for those with high resilience, and lowest for those with low resilience. CONCLUSIONS: In the current sample, resilience appeared to influence the strength of the relationship between distress and COVID-19 prevention behaviors. Having higher resilience may promote positive adaptation to distress, leading individuals to engage in a greater number of disease-related prevention behaviors. Future research should examine this relationship longitudinally and in relation to differing constructs of resilience.

Assessing the Geographic Context of Risk Perception and Behavioral Response to Potential Ebola Exposure.

The 2014⁻2016 Ebola Virus Disease (EVD) epidemic outbreak reached over 28,000 cases and totaled over 11,000 deaths with 4 confirmed cases in the United States, which sparked widespread public concern about nationwide spread of EVD. Concern was elevated in locations connected to the infected people, which included Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. This threat of exposure enabled a unique opportunity to assess self-reported knowledge about EVD, risk perception, and behavior response to EVD. Unlike existing studies, which often survey one point in time across geographically coarse scales, this work offers insights into the geographic context of risk perception and behavior at finer-grained spatial and temporal scales. We report results from 3138 respondents comprised of faculty, staff, and students at two time periods. Results reveal increased EVD knowledge, decreased risk perception, and reduction in protective actions during this time. Faculty had the lowest perceived risk, followed by staff and then students, suggesting the role of education in this outcome. However, the most impactful result is the proof-of-concept for this study design to be deployed in the midst of a disease outbreak. Such geographically targeted and temporally dynamic surveys distributed during an outbreak can show where and when risk perception and behaviors change, which can provide policy-makers with rapid results that can shape intervention practices.

Correlation of USMLE Step 1 scores with performance on dermatology in-training examinations.

BACKGROUND: Although United States Medical Licensing Examination (USMLE) Step 1 was not designed to predict resident performance, scores are used to compare residency applicants. Multiple studies have displayed a significant correlation among Step 1 scores, in-training examination (ITE) scores, and board passage, although no such studies have been performed in dermatology. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study is to determine if this correlation exists in dermatology, and how much of the variability in ITE scores is a result of differences in Step 1 scores. This study also seeks to determine if it is appropriate to individualize expectations for resident ITE performance. METHODS: This project received institutional review board exemption. From 5 dermatology residency programs (86 residents), we collected Step 1 and ITE scores for each of the 3 years of dermatology residency, and recorded passage/failure on boards. Bivariate Pearson correlation analysis was used to assess correlation between USMLE and ITE scores. Ordinary least squares regression was computed to determine how much USMLE scores contribute to ITE variability. RESULTS: USMLE and ITE score correlations were highly significant (P < .001). Correlation coefficients with USMLE were: 0.467, 0.541, and 0.527 for ITE in years 1, 2, and 3, respectively. Variability in ITE scores caused by differences in USMLE scores were: ITE first-year residency = 21.8%, ITE second-year residency = 29.3%, and ITE third-year residency = 27.8%. LIMITATIONS: This study had a relatively small sample size, with data from only 5 programs. CONCLUSIONS: There is a moderate correlation between USMLE and ITE scores, with USMLE scores explaining ∼26% of the variability in ITE scores.