Mental Health among Higher Education Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Survey from Lithuania.

Mental health issues-anxiety, depression, suicidal ideation and behavior-are prevalent among students of higher education. The COVID-19 pandemic further affected students' daily life through academic and socioeconomic disturbances. We set out to investigate students' mental health amidst the COVID-19 pandemic and conducted a cross-sectional online survey at higher education institutions in Lithuania in 2021. The questionnaire consisted of the Hospital Anxiety and Depression scale (HADS) and the Sense of Coherence scale (SOC-3) questionnaires, evaluation of suicidal risk, experiences during the COVID-19 pandemic and self-rated health status (SRHS). Among 1001 students who completed the survey, the prevalence of clinically relevant anxiety was high (46.6%) and contrasted with the lower prevalence of depression (11.1%). 37.5% of all students admitted that they had thought about suicide at least once during their lifetime and a similar number of students thought about suicide during the previous year. High levels of anxiety and depression were statistically significant predictors of suicidal ideation and planning during the past year in binary regression models. High SRHS (higher score refers to more positive health status) was the only significant independent variable associated with less frequent suicidal attempts in the past year (p < 0.01, OR = 0.29, 95% CI = 0.12 to 0.66). Our study highlights anxiety and suicidality to be burdensome mental health issues among higher education students in Lithuania during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Distress and resilience associated with workload of medical students.

BACKGROUND: University students face numerous stressors during their study curricula, which require adequate resilience to ensure healthy adaptation. AIMS: To examine how relationships between study workload and mental health problems are moderated by resilience. Secondly, to compare our findings with other studies and assess differences in resilience and distress between medical and non-medical students. METHODS: A prospective quantitative design was used. Participants completed a questionnaire package assessing resilience resources (Resilience Scale for Adults) and mental health (Core-OM: Clinical outcomes in routine evaluation - outcome measure) under three different conditions: heavy, low or regular workload. RESULTS: During heavy workload, significantly higher distress score was found among medical students compared to other students (1.46 vs. 1.25; p < 0.05). Medical students had slightly higher overall resilience scores (5.21 vs. 4.94; p > 0.05). During heavy workload up to 20% of the participants had higher distress score than clinical samples' average from other studies. RSA score and Core-OM scores were inversely dependent (p < 0.0001; r= -0.434). CONCLUSION: Findings suggest that distress mediated by heavy workload does not significantly affect resilience. Many students, especially medical, are experiencing high levels of distress. Resilience is associated with the decrease in distress.

Patients' resilience and distress over time: Is resilience a prognostic indicator of treatment?

BACKGROUND: Resilience is a positive adaptation or the ability to maintain mental health despite experiencing difficulty. Many researchers are linking resilience with many aspects of life, most often with better mental health. Resilience can affect health status and symptoms, but conversely, it can also be affected by health status or symptoms. From the literature it appears that resilience can even be a predictor of psychiatric symptoms. Resilience can predict severity of symptoms, but the question is whether symptoms can also affect resilience over time when previous levels of resilience are controlled for. The aim of this study was to explore the relationship of resilience scores and the expression of distress in the context of treatment over time. METHODS: Ninety-five patients diagnosed with affective and anxiety disorders from a clinical sample treated psychotherapeutically with (N=81) or without (N=14) a pharmacological treatment at a psychotherapy day center participated in the study. All the participants were assessed three times: at the beginning of the treatment, after treatment (after 6weeks), and after a follow-up interval of 6months after the end of therapy. The Resilience Scale for Adults and the Clinical Outcomes in Routine Evaluation Outcome Measure were used in the study. RESULTS: All distress indicators were expressed more before the treatment compared to right after the treatment or half a year after the treatment. Distress indicators were more stable from Time 1 to Time 2, while from Time 2 to Time 3 they were less stable. In this study, resilience increased during the treatment and stayed stable after the treatment. Looking at bidirectional relationships between distress indicators and resilience over time, the results of this study suggest that levels of resilience have a prognostic value for the reduction of symptoms over the course of treatment. However, decrease in distress does not predict increase in resilience. CONCLUSIONS: Levels of resilience measured by RSA scores seem to have a certain prognostic value for the reduction of symptoms over the course of treatment. Perception of self was the strongest predictor of lower levels of distress over time when distress and perception of self-stability are controlled for. Results suggest that decreased distress indicators are not directly related to increasing resilience over six weeks or over six months. Considering that resilience is rather stable over time and indicators are less stable, it is possible that resilience could be increased by personal or environmental factors, and a decrease in distress is not a contributing factor. In this study distress decreased over time, while resilience characteristics increased for the whole sample. Patients in this study underwent treatment, and decreases in global distress were a result of treatment. An increase in resilience over time supports the effectiveness of treatment. However, there were no significant differences between treatment types while evaluating models. Results suggest that treatments (psychotherapy or psychopharmacological with psychotherapy) were equally effective for the chosen patients.

Resilience in a reborn nation: Validation of the Lithuanian Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA).

BACKGROUND: Resilience, as an ability to withstand or rebound from crisis or adversity, is becoming an increasingly significant concept in health promotion and well-being. Individuals exhibiting resilience use skills or resources flexibly to solve situational demands. The Resilience Scale for Adults (RSA) may be used to assess protective resources, and the aim of the present study was to validate the Lithuanian translation. METHODS: The translated RSA was administered to a clinical (n=125) and a non clinical sample (n=499) to examine the discriminant validity of the RSA items with a confirmatory factor analysis, the internal consistency as well as construct validity by correlating it with the Quick Psycho-Affective Symptoms Scan (QPASS). RESULTS: The internal consistency, the test-retest stability and the factor structure were replicated as adequate, thus indicating good psychometric properties and support of discriminant validity. Females reported more resilience resources for the domains of social competence, family cohesion and social resources compared to men. The RSA subscales correlated negatively with the QPASS scores, and patients reported significantly less resilience resources than non-patients, thus indicating construct validity. CONCLUSIONS: Valid psychometric tools for research purposes and routine every-day use are urgently needed in Lithuania, a young nation still under numerous challenges due to social, economic and political transitions. The RSA represents a reliable and valid tool for assessing protective factors. Assessing resilience factors may extend the understanding of factors relevant for mental health problems as well as treatment prognosis beyond the capabilities of mere symptom oriented approaches.