Self-report assessment of Positive Appraisal Style (PAS): Development of a process-focused and a content-focused questionnaire for use in mental health and resilience research.

Positive Appraisal Style Theory of Resilience posits that a person's general style of evaluating stressors plays a central role in mental health and resilience. Specifically, a tendency to appraise stressors positively (positive appraisal style; PAS) is theorized to be protective of mental health and thus a key resilience factor. To this date no measures of PAS exist. Here, we present two scales that measure perceived positive appraisal style, one focusing on cognitive processes that lead to positive appraisals in stressful situations (PASS-process), and the other focusing on the appraisal contents (PASS-content). For PASS-process, the items of the existing questionnaires Brief COPE and CERQ-short were analyzed in exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (EFA, CFA) in independent samples (N = 1157 and N = 1704). The resulting 10-item questionnaire was internally consistent (α = .78, 95% CI [.86, .87]) and showed good convergent and discriminant validity in comparisons with self-report measures of trait optimism, neuroticism, urgency, and spontaneity. For PASS-content, a newly generated item pool of 29 items across stressor appraisal content dimensions (probability, magnitude, and coping potential) were subjected to EFA and CFA in two independent samples (N = 1174 and N = 1611). The resulting 14-item scale showed good internal consistency (α = .87, 95% CI [.86, .87]), as well as good convergent and discriminant validity within the nomological network. The two scales are a new and reliable way to assess self-perceived positive appraisal style in large-scale studies, which could offer key insights into mechanisms of resilience.

Resilience and depressive symptoms in inpatients with depression: A cross-lagged panel model.

BACKGROUND: Resilience-the ability to bounce back or quickly recover from stress-has been found to predict treatment outcome in patients with mental disorders such as depression. The current study aimed to test whether resilience itself changes during treatment and whether resilience exclusively predicts changes in depressive symptoms or whether depressive symptoms also predict changes in resilience. METHODS: Inpatients with depression (N = 2165; average length of stay M = 60 days, SD = 32) completed the Brief Resilience Scale and the Patient Health Questionnaire Depression Scale at admission and discharge, scores of which were used to run a cross-lagged panel model. RESULTS: Resilience increased and depressive symptoms decreased from admission to discharge. Cross-sectionally, higher resilience was related to lower depressive symptoms at admission and at discharge. Prospectively, higher resilience at admission predicted stronger decreases in depressive symptoms, and higher depressive symptoms at admission predicted smaller increases in resilience. LIMITATIONS: Self-report questionnaires may potentially be biased (e.g., through recall bias, social desirability, or demand effects). CONCLUSIONS: The current study further supports that resilience is related not only to fewer mental health problems cross-sectionally but also is sensitive to change and a predictor of treatment outcome in patients with mental disorders. Given this pivotal role in mental health, the current findings highlight the importance of prevention and intervention approaches for promoting resilience in the general population and in persons with mental disorders in particular.

How do spine surgeons cope with psychological distress: results of a cross-sectional study.

Cross Sectional Study/Online Survey. In this study, we sought to assess stress, psychological distress, resilience, and coping strategies among spine surgeons in German-speaking countries. Recent studies have reported high rates of stress and burnout among surgeons. A survey via Survey Monkey™ was conducted among spine surgeons practicing in German-speaking countries using validated questionnaires for perceived stress, mental burden, resilience, and quality of life. Data on working situation and demographics were also collected. 582 surgeons responded to the survey, representing 15% of those surveyed. 79% of respondents were satisfied with their professional success. Mental burden was higher than in the general population, as was perceived stress. Chairpersons were exposed to the lowest levels of perceived stress and mental burden. Mental distress was high (GHQ ≥ 12) in 59% of residents and 27% chairpersons. Self-reported psychological resilience was higher than levels found in the general population and highest among chairpersons. Quality of life was comparable to levels reported in the general population. There were statistically significant correlations between perceived stress and mental burden scores (r s = 0.65, p < 0.001). Career level (senior physicians vs. residents, OR 0.26; 95% CI 0.10-0.66), perceived stress (OR 1.54; 95% CI 1.33-1.77), self-reported resilience (OR 0.53; 95% CI 0.33-0.84), and mental composite score (SOR 0.86; 95% CI 0.83-0.90) were predictors of high mental burden. There was no interaction between perceived stress and resilience on mental burden (p = 0.835). Spine surgeons are exposed to higher levels of stress than the general population, which are associated with higher mental distress. More professional experience and higher levels of psychological resilience are associated with lower levels of stress.

Deep learning and differential equations for modeling changes in individual-level latent dynamics between observation periods.

When modeling longitudinal biomedical data, often dimensionality reduction as well as dynamic modeling in the resulting latent representation is needed. This can be achieved by artificial neural networks for dimension reduction and differential equations for dynamic modeling of individual-level trajectories. However, such approaches so far assume that parameters of individual-level dynamics are constant throughout the observation period. Motivated by an application from psychological resilience research, we propose an extension where different sets of differential equation parameters are allowed for observation subperiods. Still, estimation for intra-individual subperiods is coupled for being able to fit the model also with a relatively small dataset. We subsequently derive prediction targets from individual dynamic models of resilience in the application. These serve as outcomes for predicting resilience from characteristics of individuals, measured at baseline and a follow-up time point, and selecting a small set of important predictors. Our approach is seen to successfully identify individual-level parameters of dynamic models that allow to stably select predictors, that is, resilience factors. Furthermore, we can identify those characteristics of individuals that are the most promising for updates at follow-up, which might inform future study design. This underlines the usefulness of our proposed deep dynamic modeling approach with changes in parameters between observation subperiods.

Interventions to foster resilience in nursing staff: A systematic review and meta-analyses of pre-pandemic evidence.

BACKGROUND: Given the chronic work-related stressors experienced by nursing staff in today's healthcare systems, international evidence suggests an elevated risk of developing stress-related mental symptoms. Therefore, identifying effective methods to foster resilience (i.e., maintenance or fast recovery of mental health despite stressor exposure) seems crucial. To date, little is known about the efficacy of these interventions in nurses. OBJECTIVE: This systematic review aimed at summarizing the evidence on the pre-pandemic efficacy of psychological interventions to foster resilience, to improve mental symptoms and well-being as well as to promote resilience factors in nurses. Based on training programs with evidence for positive effects on resilience and mental health in meta-analyses, we aimed at identifying important and helpful intervention techniques. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analyses based on a Cochrane review on pre-pandemic resilience interventions in healthcare professionals. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL and 11 other databases were searched until June 2020 to identify eligible randomized controlled trials. Trial registers, reference lists and contact with authors were additional sources. REVIEW METHODS: Two reviewers independently assessed study eligibility and extracted data. The Cochrane risk of bias assessment tool was used to evaluate the risk of bias of included studies. We conducted random-effects pairwise meta-analyses for five primary outcomes, including resilience. The intervention contents and techniques were narratively synthesized. RESULTS: Of 39,794 records retrieved, 24 studies were included in the review (N = 1879 randomized participants), 17 in meta-analyses (n = 1020 participants). At post-intervention, we found very-low certainty evidence of moderate effects in favor of resilience training for resilience (standardized mean difference [SMD] 0.39; 95% CI [confidence interval] 0.12-0.66) and well-being (SMD 0.44; 95% CI 0.15-0.72), while there was no evidence of effects on symptoms of anxiety, depression and stress. The improvement of well-being was sustained in the short-term (≤3 months), with additional delayed benefits for anxiety and stress. There was no evidence of effects at later follow-ups, with the caveat of only three available studies. Among nine programs with evidence of positive moderate effect sizes, intervention contents included mindfulness and relaxation, psychoeducation, emotion regulation, cognitive strategies, problem-solving and the strengthening of internal and external resources. CONCLUSIONS: Given the chronic stressor exposure in nursing staff, our findings may guide both the design and implementation of nurse-directed resilience interventions. To improve the certainty of evidence, more rigorous high-quality research using improved study designs (e.g., larger sample sizes, longer follow-up periods) is urgently needed. REGISTRATION: PROSPERO 2017 CRD42017082827.

Individualizing deep dynamic models for psychological resilience data.

Deep learning approaches can uncover complex patterns in data. In particular, variational autoencoders achieve this by a non-linear mapping of data into a low-dimensional latent space. Motivated by an application to psychological resilience in the Mainz Resilience Project, which features intermittent longitudinal measurements of stressors and mental health, we propose an approach for individualized, dynamic modeling in this latent space. Specifically, we utilize ordinary differential equations (ODEs) and develop a novel technique for obtaining person-specific ODE parameters even in settings with a rather small number of individuals and observations, incomplete data, and a differing number of observations per individual. This technique allows us to subsequently investigate individual reactions to stimuli, such as the mental health impact of stressors. A potentially large number of baseline characteristics can then be linked to this individual response by regularized regression, e.g., for identifying resilience factors. Thus, our new method provides a way of connecting different kinds of complex longitudinal and baseline measures via individualized, dynamic models. The promising results obtained in the exemplary resilience application indicate that our proposal for dynamic deep learning might also be more generally useful for other application domains.

Pharmacological Neuroenhancement, Perceived Stress, and Resilience in Spine Surgeons-A Cross-Sectional Survey.

BACKGROUND: Spine surgeons are usually exposed to high workload and demanding work conditions. Although the relationship between pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) and resilience (i.e., the ability to recover from stress), as well as perceived stress and resilience-enhancing factors, has been investigated in the general population, less is known about the impact of those factors in spine surgeons. This study aimed to close that gap by investigating the relationship between PNE use and resilience, perceived stress, or resilience-enhancing factors in spine surgeons. METHODS: We conducted a cross-sectional survey in a sample of 582 spine surgeons in German-speaking countries (Austria, Germany, and Switzerland). Potentially predictive variables as well as the use of PNE were assessed by self-report questionnaires. We conducted stepwise logistic regression with backward elimination to assess the relationship among PNE use, perceived stress, resilience, and resilience-enhancing factors. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence for PNE use was 5.7%, with highest prevalence rates for antidepressants (2.6%). Each additional unit on the Perceived Stress Scale increased the risk for PNE use (odds ratio, 2.271; 95% confidence interval, 0.1.363-3.785; P = 0.002). No statistically significant results were found for the individual ability to recover from stress or resilience-enhancing factors. CONCLUSIONS: Spine surgeons with higher levels of stress seem to be more prone to nonmedical use of PNE. Tailored interventions may improve the ability to cope with high perceived stress and prevent the use of PNE. Further research should examine the efficacy of those interventions on the prevention of PNE in spine surgeons.

The Frequent Stressor and Mental Health Monitoring-Paradigm: A Proposal for the Operationalization and Measurement of Resilience and the Identification of Resilience Processes in Longitudinal Observational Studies.

Resilience has been defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during and after times of adversity. How to operationalize resilience and to determine the factors and processes that lead to good long-term mental health outcomes in stressor-exposed individuals is a matter of ongoing debate and of critical importance for the advancement of the field. One of the biggest challenges for implementing an outcome-based definition of resilience in longitudinal observational study designs lies in the fact that real-life adversity is usually unpredictable and that its substantial qualitative as well as temporal variability between subjects often precludes defining circumscribed time windows of inter-individually comparable stressor exposure relative to which the maintenance or recovery of mental health can be determined. To address this pertinent issue, we propose to frequently and regularly monitor stressor exposure (E) and mental health problems (P) throughout a study's observation period [Frequent Stressor and Mental Health Monitoring (FRESHMO)-paradigm]. On this basis, a subject's deviation at any single monitoring time point from the study sample's normative E-P relationship (the regression residual) can be used to calculate that subject's current mental health reactivity to stressor exposure ("stressor reactivity," SR). The SR score takes into account the individual extent of experienced adversity and is comparable between and within subjects. Individual SR time courses across monitoring time points reflect intra-individual temporal variability in SR, where periods of under-reactivity (negative SR score) are associated with accumulation of fewer mental health problems than is normal for the sample. If FRESHMO is accompanied by regular measurement of potential resilience factors, temporal changes in resilience factors can be used to predict SR time courses. An increase in a resilience factor measurement explaining a lagged decrease in SR can then be considered to index a process of adaptation to stressor exposure that promotes a resilient outcome (an allostatic resilience process). This design principle allows resilience research to move beyond merely determining baseline predictors of resilience outcomes, which cannot inform about how individuals successfully adjust and adapt when confronted with adversity. Hence, FRESHMO plus regular resilience factor monitoring incorporates a dynamic-systems perspective into resilience research.

Perceived threat modulates inhibitory performance.

Highly arousing, affective stimuli have adverse effects on cognition and performance. Perception of affective stimuli is, however, highly subjective and may impact on the interaction of emotion and cognition. Here, we tested the impact of high- versus low-threatening stimuli on response inhibition as a function of perceived threat intensity. Response inhibition was probed using a stop-signal paradigm in 62 healthy adults. We used stop-signals that had previously been paired with an unpleasant electrodermal stimulation (i.e., high-threat stimuli) or that had never been paired with electrodermal stimulation (i.e., low-threat stimuli). High-threat stimuli did not affect stopping performance in general. Only participants who perceived the high-threat stimuli as highly painful showed impaired response inhibition on high-threat trials relative to low-threat trials. Participants who perceived the high-threat as mildly painful, however, showed improved response inhibition on high-threat trials. This effect was not moderated by the current anxious state. This suggests that the impact of negative affective stimuli on cognition critically depends on subjective threat perception. Ratings of affective stimuli should be included in studies probing the emotion-cognition interaction because subjective perception might strongly impact on that interaction. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Challenges in the Transition from In-Patient to Out-Patient Treatment in Depression.

BACKGROUND: Few data are available on the characteristics of inpatient treatment and subsequent outpatient treatment for depression in Germany. In this study, we aimed to characterize the inpatient and outpatient treatment phases, to determine the rates of readmission and mortality, and to identify risk factors. METHODS: We carried out a descriptive statistical analysis of routine administrative data from a large health-insurance carrier (BARMER). All insurees aged 18 to 65 who were treated in 2015 as inpatients on a psychiatry and psychotherapy service or on a psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy service with a main diagnosis of depression were included in the analysis. Risk factors for readmission and death were determined with the aid of mixed logistic regression. RESULTS: Of the 22 893 patients whose data were analyzed, 78% had been hospitalized on a psychiatry and psychotherapy service and 22% on a psychosomatic medicine and psychotherapy service. The median length of hospital stay was 42 days. Follow-up care in the outpatient setting failed to conform with the recommendations of the pertinent guidelines in 92% of the patients with a main diagnosis of severe depression during hospitalization, and in 50% of those with moderate depression. 21% of the patients were readmitted within a year. The mortality at one year was 961 per 100 000 individuals (adjusted for the age and sex structure of the German population), or 3.4 times the mortality of the population at large. In the regression model, more treatment units during hospitalization and subsequent treatment with psychotherapy were associated with a lower probability of readmission, while longer hospitalization with subsequent pharmacotherapy or psychotherapy was associated with lower mortality. CONCLUSION: The recommendations of the national (German) S3 guidelines for the further care of patients who have been hospitalized for depression are inadequately implemented at present in the sectored structures of in- and outpatient care in the German health care system. This patient group has marked excess mortality.

Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals.

BACKGROUND: Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only). MAIN RESULTS: We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.

Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students.

BACKGROUND: Resilience can be defined as maintaining or regaining mental health during or after significant adversities such as a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition or physical illness. Healthcare students, such as medical, nursing, psychology and social work students, are exposed to various study- and work-related stressors, the latter particularly during later phases of health professional education. They are at increased risk of developing symptoms of burnout or mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare students, that is, students in training for health professions delivering direct medical care (e.g. medical, nursing, midwifery or paramedic students), and those in training for allied health professions, as distinct from medical care (e.g. psychology, physical therapy or social work students). SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results. SELECTION CRITERIA: Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, waiting list, usual care, and active or attention control, in adults (18 years and older), who are healthcare students. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception, and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only). MAIN RESULTS: We included 30 RCTs, of which 24 were set in high-income countries and six in (upper- to lower-) middle-income countries. Twenty-two studies focused solely on healthcare students (1315 participants; number randomised not specified for two studies), including both students in health professions delivering direct medical care and those in allied health professions, such as psychology and physical therapy. Half of the studies were conducted in a university or school setting, including nursing/midwifery students or medical students. Eight studies investigated mixed samples (1365 participants), with healthcare students and participants outside of a health professional study field. Participants mainly included women (63.3% to 67.3% in mixed samples) from young adulthood (mean age range, if reported: 19.5 to 26.83 years; 19.35 to 38.14 years in mixed samples). Seventeen of the studies investigated group interventions of high training intensity (11 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (17 studies). Of the included studies, eight compared a resilience training based on mindfulness versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. universities, foundations), or a combination of various sources (four studies). Seven studies did not specify a potential funder, and three studies received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear, with main flaws in performance, detection, attrition and reporting bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare students receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.43, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.07 to 0.78; 9 studies, 561 participants), lower levels of anxiety (SMD -0.45, 95% CI -0.84 to -0.06; 7 studies, 362 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.28, 95% CI -0.48 to -0.09; 7 studies, 420 participants). Effect sizes varied between small and moderate. There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on depression (SMD -0.20, 95% CI -0.52 to 0.11; 6 studies, 332 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.15, 95% CI -0.14 to 0.43; 4 studies, 251 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Adverse effects were measured in four studies, but data were only reported for three of them. None of the three studies reported any adverse events occurring during the study (very-low certainty of evidence). AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: For healthcare students, there is very-low certainty evidence for the effect of resilience training on resilience, anxiety, and stress or stress perception at post-intervention. The heterogeneous interventions, the paucity of short-, medium- or long-term data, and the geographical distribution restricted to high-income countries limit the generalisability of results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. Since the findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare students with very-low certainty evidence, high-quality replications and improved study designs (e.g. a consensus on the definition of resilience, the assessment of individual stressor exposure, more attention controls, and longer follow-up periods) are clearly needed.

Increases of negative affect following daily hassles are not moderated by neuroticism: An ecological momentary assessment study.

The occurrence of daily hassles is associated with increased subsequent levels of negative affect. Neuroticism has been found to exacerbate this effect. So far, most research used single-item measures for the assessment of daily hassles or relied on daily diary studies. This study aimed to examine the interrelations of daily hassles, negative affect reactivity, and neuroticism in daily life employing an extensive inventory of daily hassles. Seventy participants (18-30 years; M = 23.9 years, 59% female) completed a 4-week smartphone-based ecological momentary assessment study reporting the occurrence and perceived strain of daily hassles as well as negative affect at five semi-random signals between 9 a.m. and 8 p.m. Multilevel analyses revealed significant associations between elevated levels of negative affect and higher cumulative daily hassle strain ratings per signal in concurrent and time-lagged analyses. Contrary to our expectations, there was no moderation by neuroticism on these associations. The results suggest that daily hassles can accumulate in their impact on mood in daily life and exert a prolonged effect on negative affect. The absence of a significant moderation by neuroticism may be interpreted in the light of methodological specifics of this study.

Correction: Assessment of Microstressors in Adults: Questionnaire Development and Ecological Validation of the Mainz Inventory of Microstressors.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.2196/14566.].

Assessment of Microstressors in Adults: Questionnaire Development and Ecological Validation of the Mainz Inventory of Microstressors.

BACKGROUND: Many existing scales for microstressor assessment do not differentiate between objective (ie, observable) stressor events and stressful cognitions or concerns. They often mix items assessing objective stressor events with items measuring other aspects of stress, such as perceived stressor severity, the evoked stress reaction, or further consequences on health, which may result in spurious associations in studies that include other questionnaires that measure such constructs. Most scales were developed several decades ago; therefore, modern life stressors may not be represented. Ecological momentary assessment (EMA) allows for sampling of current behaviors and experiences in real time and in the natural habitat, thereby maximizing the generalization of the findings to real-life situations (ie, ecological validity) and minimizing recall bias. However, it has not been used for the validation of microstressor questionnaires so far. OBJECTIVE: The aim is to develop a questionnaire that (1) allows for retrospective assessment of microstressors over one week, (2) focuses on objective (ie, observable) microstressors, (3) includes stressors of modern life, and (4) separates stressor occurrence from perceived stressor severity. METHODS: Cross-sectional (N=108) and longitudinal studies (N=10 and N=70) were conducted to evaluate the Mainz Inventory of Microstressors (MIMIS). In the longitudinal studies, EMA was used to compare stressor data, which was collected five times per day for 7 or 30 days with retrospective reports (end-of-day, end-of-week). Pearson correlations and multilevel modeling were used in the analyses. RESULTS: High correlations were found between end-of-week, end-of-day, and EMA data for microstressor occurrence (counts) (r≥.69 for comparisons per week, r≥.83 for cumulated data) and for mean perceived microstressor severity (r≥.74 for comparisons per week, r≥.85 for cumulated data). The end-of-week questionnaire predicted the EMA assessments sufficiently (counts: beta=.03, 95% CI .02-.03, P<.001; severity: beta=.73, 95% CI .59-.88, P<.001) and the association did not change significantly over four subsequent weeks. CONCLUSIONS: Our results provide evidence for the ecological validity of the MIMIS questionnaire.

[Interventions To Promote Resilience In Adults - A Narrative Review]. / Interventionen zur Resilienzförderung bei Erwachsenen.

Resilience refers to the phenomenon that many people maintain mental health despite exposure to psychological or physical adversity. Recent research suggests that resilience is dynamic and can be trained. Interventions to promote resilience aim at increasing well-being. The effects of such interventions have hardly been evaluated so far. This work is a narrative review of interventions to promote resilience in adults. We evaluated the results of 4 systematic reviews and meta-analyses on the topic and summarize the evidence from 44 randomized controlled trials. Overall, interventions to promote resilience achieved small to moderate effects regarding increasing resilience and improving mental health. Despite methodological shortcomings, the available evidence suggests that intervention programs to foster resilience can be effective and indicates that they could be a promising component of current preventive effort.

Pharmacological neuroenhancement and the ability to recover from stress - a representative cross-sectional survey among the German population.

BACKGROUND: Pharmacological neuroenhancement (PNE) refers to the use of psychoactive substances without doctor's prescription to enhance cognitive performance or to improve mood. Although some studies have reported that drugs for PNE are also being used to cope with stressful life situations, nothing is known about the relationship of PNE and resilience, i.e. the ability to recover from stress. This study aimed at investigating the relationship of PNE and resilience in the first representative population sample. METHODS: A cross-sectional survey in a representative sample of 1128 adults (age ≥ 18 yrs.) living in Germany was conducted. The use of PNE and related attitudes, perceptions and behaviours were assessed by structured interviews and self-report questionnaires. Stepwise logistic regression with backward elimination was conducted to identify potential risk factors for PNE use. RESULTS: Lifetime prevalence for the use of stimulating prescription drugs without medical indication was 4.3%, 10.2% for stimulating illicit drugs, 20.3% for mood modulating prescription drugs, and 23.4% for cannabis. Coping with stressful situations was more frequently reported as underlying motive for using stimulant or mood modulating prescription drugs than stimulating illicit drugs or cannabis. The individual perceived stress increased the risk of using stimulating prescription drugs (OR: 2.86; 95% Cl: 1.49-5.46) and the individual ability to recover from stress decreased the risk of using any substance for PNE and especially mood modulating prescription drugs (OR: .62; 95% Cl: .47-.81). CONCLUSIONS: The non-medical use of prescription drugs for PNE appears to be more prevalent in subjects who are less resilient to stress. Tailored resilience interventions that improve the ability to adapt to and recover from stressors may prevent the use of prescription medication for PNE. Further research should disentangle the association between psychological resilience and PNE as well as examine the efficacy of resilience interventions in the prevention of PNE.

Population-based validation of a German version of the Brief Resilience Scale.

Smith and colleagues developed the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) to assess the individual ability to recover from stress despite significant adversity. This study aimed to validate the German version of the BRS. We used data from a population-based (sample 1: n = 1.481) and a representative (sample 2: n = 1.128) sample of participants from the German general population (age ≥ 18) to assess reliability and validity. Confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) were conducted to compare one- and two-factorial models from previous studies with a method-factor model which especially accounts for the wording of the items. Reliability was analyzed. Convergent validity was measured by correlating BRS scores with mental health measures, coping, social support, and optimism. Reliability was good (α = .85, ω = .85 for both samples). The method-factor model showed excellent model fit (sample 1: χ2/df = 7.544; RMSEA = .07; CFI = .99; SRMR = .02; sample 2: χ2/df = 1.166; RMSEA = .01; CFI = 1.00; SRMR = .01) which was significantly better than the one-factor model (Δχ2(4) = 172.71, p < .001) or the two-factor model (Δχ2(3) = 31.16, p < .001). The BRS was positively correlated with well-being, social support, optimism, and the coping strategies active coping, positive reframing, acceptance, and humor. It was negatively correlated with somatic symptoms, anxiety and insomnia, social dysfunction, depression, and the coping strategies religion, denial, venting, substance use, and self-blame. To conclude, our results provide evidence for the reliability and validity of the German adaptation of the BRS as well as the unidimensional structure of the scale once method effects are accounted for.

Construct Validity and Population-Based Norms of the German Brief Resilience Scale (BRS).

The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) measures the ability to recover from stress. To provide further evidence for construct validity of the German BRS and to determine population-based norms, a large sample (N = 1,128) representative of the German adult population completed a survey including the BRS and instruments measuring perceived stress and the resilience factors optimism, self-efficacy, and locus of control. Confirmatory factor analyses showed best model fit for a five-factor model differentiating the ability to recover from stress from the three resilience factors. On the basis of latent and manifest correlations, convergent and discriminant validity of the BRS were fair to good. Female sex, older age, lower weekly working time, higher perceived stress, lower optimism, and self-efficacy as well as higher external locus of control predicted lower BRS scores, that is, lower ability to recover from stress.