Psycho-social factors associated with mental resilience in the Corona lockdown.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is not only a threat to physical health but is also having severe impacts on mental health. Although increases in stress-related symptomatology and other adverse psycho-social outcomes, as well as their most important risk factors have been described, hardly anything is known about potential protective factors. Resilience refers to the maintenance of mental health despite adversity. To gain mechanistic insights about the relationship between described psycho-social resilience factors and resilience specifically in the current crisis, we assessed resilience factors, exposure to Corona crisis-specific and general stressors, as well as internalizing symptoms in a cross-sectional online survey conducted in 24 languages during the most intense phase of the lockdown in Europe (22 March to 19 April) in a convenience sample of N = 15,970 adults. Resilience, as an outcome, was conceptualized as good mental health despite stressor exposure and measured as the inverse residual between actual and predicted symptom total score. Preregistered hypotheses (osf.io/r6btn) were tested with multiple regression models and mediation analyses. Results confirmed our primary hypothesis that positive appraisal style (PAS) is positively associated with resilience (p < 0.0001). The resilience factor PAS also partly mediated the positive association between perceived social support and resilience, and its association with resilience was in turn partly mediated by the ability to easily recover from stress (both p < 0.0001). In comparison with other resilience factors, good stress response recovery and positive appraisal specifically of the consequences of the Corona crisis were the strongest factors. Preregistered exploratory subgroup analyses (osf.io/thka9) showed that all tested resilience factors generalize across major socio-demographic categories. This research identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted by public mental health efforts in this and in future pandemics

Delayed affective recovery to daily-life stressors signals a risk for depression

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to investigate the time to affective recovery from daily-life stressors between healthy controls (HC) and two groups with an increased risk for developing depression: individuals with subclinical symptoms of depression (SSD), and individuals remitted from a depressive episode with residual symptoms of depression (RRS). METHOD: The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to measure affective recovery to daily-life stressors. Affective recovery was defined as the moment that negative affect (NA) returned to baseline level following the first stressful event of the day. We assessed two different operationalizations of the baseline: NA at the moment before the stressful event (t-1), and mean-person NA. The effect of stress intensity, and cumulative stress were also assessed. RESULTS: Survival analyses showed significantly longer recovery times for the at risk groups in comparison to healthy individuals, albeit no significant difference was found between the two at risk groups (i.e. SSD and RRS). There was also an effect of cumulative stress, but not stress intensity on time to recovery in that cumulative stress resulted in significantly longer recovery times for all three groups. LIMITATIONS: The present study is limited by the ESM sampling design, assessments take place post-stress and therefore do not capture peak stress. Additionally, we are only able to assess patterns at the group level. Finally, there is a significant age difference between groups. CONCLUSION: Individuals at risk for depression display a delayed recovery to daily-life stressors when compared to healthy controls, which is not explained by differences in stress intensity or cumulative stress. Understanding what is driving this delay may help combat the development of depression

Delayed affective recovery to daily-life stressors signals a risk for depression

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the time to affective recovery from daily-life stressors between healthy controls (HC) and two groups with an increased risk for developing depression: individuals with subclinical symptoms of depression (SSD), and individuals remitted from a depressive episode with residual symptoms of depression (RRS). Method: The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to measure affective recovery to daily-life stressors. Affective recovery was defined as the moment that negative affect (NA) returned to baseline level following the first stressful event of the day. We assessed two different operationalizations of the baseline: NA at the moment before the stressful event (t−1), and mean-person NA. The effect of stress intensity, and cumulative stress were also assessed. Results: Survival analyses showed significantly longer recovery times for the at risk groups in comparison to healthy individuals, albeit no significant difference was found between the two at risk groups (i.e. SSD and RRS). There was also an effect of cumulative stress, but not stress intensity on time to recovery in that cumulative stress resulted in significantly longer recovery times for all three groups. Limitations: The present study is limited by the ESM sampling design, assessments take place post-stress and therefore do not capture peak stress. Additionally, we are only able to assess patterns at the group level. Finally, there is a significant age difference between groups. Conclusion: Individuals at risk for depression display a delayed recovery to daily-life stressors when compared to healthy controls, which is not explained by differences in stress intensity or cumulative stress. Understanding what is driving this delay may help combat the development of depression.</p

Delayed affective recovery to daily-life stressors signals a risk for depression

Objective: The aim of this study is to investigate the time to affective recovery from daily-life stressors between healthy controls (HC) and two groups with an increased risk for developing depression: individuals with subclinical symptoms of depression (SSD), and individuals remitted from a depressive episode with residual symptoms of depression (RRS). Method: The experience sampling method (ESM) was used to measure affective recovery to daily-life stressors. Affective recovery was defined as the moment that negative affect (NA) returned to baseline level following the first stressful event of the day. We assessed two different operationalizations of the baseline: NA at the moment before the stressful event (t-1), and mean-person NA. The effect of stress intensity, and cumulative stress were also assessed. Results: Survival analyses showed significantly longer recovery times for the at risk groups in comparison to healthy individuals, albeit no significant difference was found between the two at risk groups (i.e. SSD and RRS). There was also an effect of cumulative stress, but not stress intensity on time to recovery in that cumulative stress resulted in significantly longer recovery times for all three groups. Limitations: The present study is limited by the ESM sampling design, assessments take place post-stress and therefore do not capture peak stress. Additionally, we are only able to assess patterns at the group level. Finally, there is a significant age difference between groups. Conclusion: Individuals at risk for depression display a delayed recovery to daily-life stressors when compared to healthy controls, which is not explained by differences in stress intensity or cumulative stress. Understanding what is driving this delay may help combat the development of depression

Psycho-social factors associated with mental resilience in the Corona lockdown.

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is not only a threat to physical health but is also having severe impacts on mental health. Although increases in stress-related symptomatology and other adverse psycho-social outcomes, as well as their most important risk factors have been described, hardly anything is known about potential protective factors. Resilience refers to the maintenance of mental health despite adversity. To gain mechanistic insights about the relationship between described psycho-social resilience factors and resilience specifically in the current crisis, we assessed resilience factors, exposure to Corona crisis-specific and general stressors, as well as internalizing symptoms in a cross-sectional online survey conducted in 24 languages during the most intense phase of the lockdown in Europe (22 March to 19 April) in a convenience sample of N = 15,970 adults. Resilience, as an outcome, was conceptualized as good mental health despite stressor exposure and measured as the inverse residual between actual and predicted symptom total score. Preregistered hypotheses (osf.io/r6btn) were tested with multiple regression models and mediation analyses. Results confirmed our primary hypothesis that positive appraisal style (PAS) is positively associated with resilience (p < 0.0001). The resilience factor PAS also partly mediated the positive association between perceived social support and resilience, and its association with resilience was in turn partly mediated by the ability to easily recover from stress (both p < 0.0001). In comparison with other resilience factors, good stress response recovery and positive appraisal specifically of the consequences of the Corona crisis were the strongest factors. Preregistered exploratory subgroup analyses (osf.io/thka9) showed that all tested resilience factors generalize across major socio-demographic categories. This research identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted by public mental health efforts in this and in future pandemics

Psycho-social factors associated with mental resilience in the Corona lockdown

The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is not only a threat to physical health but is also having severe impacts on mental health. Although increases in stress-related symptomatology and other adverse psycho-social outcomes, as well as their most important risk factors have been described, hardly anything is known about potential protective factors. Resilience refers to the maintenance of mental health despite adversity. To gain mechanistic insights about the relationship between described psycho-social resilience factors and resilience specifically in the current crisis, we assessed resilience factors, exposure to Corona crisis-specific and general stressors, as well as internalizing symptoms in a cross-sectional online survey conducted in 24 languages during the most intense phase of the lockdown in Europe (22 March to 19 April) in a convenience sample of N = 15,970 adults. Resilience, as an outcome, was conceptualized as good mental health despite stressor exposure and measured as the inverse residual between actual and predicted symptom total score. Preregistered hypotheses (osf.io/r6btn) were tested with multiple regression models and mediation analyses. Results confirmed our primary hypothesis that positive appraisal style (PAS) is positively associated with resilience (p &lt; 0.0001). The resilience factor PAS also partly mediated the positive association between perceived social support and resilience, and its association with resilience was in turn partly mediated by the ability to easily recover from stress (both p &lt; 0.0001). In comparison with other resilience factors, good stress response recovery and positive appraisal specifically of the consequences of the Corona crisis were the strongest factors. Preregistered exploratory subgroup analyses (osf.io/thka9) showed that all tested resilience factors generalize across major socio-demographic categories. This research identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted by public mental health efforts in this and in future pandemics. © 2021, The Author(s)

Psycho-social factors associated with mental resilience in the Corona lockdown

Funder: State of Rhineland-Palatinate, Germany (MARP program, DRZ program, Leibniz Institute for Resilience Research)Abstract: The SARS-CoV-2 pandemic is not only a threat to physical health but is also having severe impacts on mental health. Although increases in stress-related symptomatology and other adverse psycho-social outcomes, as well as their most important risk factors have been described, hardly anything is known about potential protective factors. Resilience refers to the maintenance of mental health despite adversity. To gain mechanistic insights about the relationship between described psycho-social resilience factors and resilience specifically in the current crisis, we assessed resilience factors, exposure to Corona crisis-specific and general stressors, as well as internalizing symptoms in a cross-sectional online survey conducted in 24 languages during the most intense phase of the lockdown in Europe (22 March to 19 April) in a convenience sample of N = 15,970 adults. Resilience, as an outcome, was conceptualized as good mental health despite stressor exposure and measured as the inverse residual between actual and predicted symptom total score. Preregistered hypotheses (osf.io/r6btn) were tested with multiple regression models and mediation analyses. Results confirmed our primary hypothesis that positive appraisal style (PAS) is positively associated with resilience (p < 0.0001). The resilience factor PAS also partly mediated the positive association between perceived social support and resilience, and its association with resilience was in turn partly mediated by the ability to easily recover from stress (both p < 0.0001). In comparison with other resilience factors, good stress response recovery and positive appraisal specifically of the consequences of the Corona crisis were the strongest factors. Preregistered exploratory subgroup analyses (osf.io/thka9) showed that all tested resilience factors generalize across major socio-demographic categories. This research identifies modifiable protective factors that can be targeted by public mental health efforts in this and in future pandemics