A cross-sectional investigation of the mental health and wellbeing among individuals who have been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 international border closure in Australia.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in the Australian government implementing strict international border closures. However, research has not yet investigated the mental health status of individuals impacted negatively by these international border closures. METHODS: The present study was a cross-sectional online survey of 3968 adults who reported being negatively affected by the border closure during June and July 2021. Psychological distress was measured with the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10), stress with the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS) and wellbeing with the Mental Health Continuum Short Form (MHC-SF). RESULTS: In total, 3968 participants reported being negatively affected by the current restrictions (63.4% in Australia, 36.6% overseas). The vast majority of respondents (83.6%) reported high or very high levels of psychological distress (mean K10 score > 22), and 74.8% reported poor mental wellbeing, with similar risk profiles for participants in Australia or overseas. The most common scenarios of affected individuals included 1) wanting to enter Australia (30.8%), 2) wanting to leave Australia (29.6%) and 3) wanting someone to enter Australia (25.6%). Reasons included wanting to be with partners, family and friends (81.1%), for employment/economic reasons (4.9%), study (4.1%), personal safety/health (2.6%) or holiday (1.4%). While psychological distress was extremely high across all groups, separated partners and those with interrupted study experienced the highest distress (mean K10 = 35.7, n = 155). CONCLUSION: The data suggests a highly elevated mental health risk profile among individuals who report being negatively affected by current Australian international border closures. The results provide valuable data to inform future policy decisions and have clear implications regarding effective service provision for this vulnerable group.

Hasty decision-making in individuals at higher risk of developing an eating disorder.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The Jumping to Conclusions (JTC) bias is the tendency to make hasty decisions based on limited evidence and may contribute to the formation of over-valued beliefs about the importance of weight, shape and eating. Previous research investigating the JTC bias in clinical eating disorder samples, as assessed by the beads task, is inconclusive. The current study investigated the JTC bias in a non-clinical sample of undergraduate students identified as being lower or higher risk of developing an eating disorder. The study used a more reliable 'distractor' beads task that also incentivised hastier decisions by elevating the pressure of the task. METHODS: Female undergraduate students (N = 156, 48%, classified as higher risk) completed a pressure and non-pressure distractor beads task, along with measures of weight concern and body-image flexibility. RESULTS: Higher risk participants displayed a hastier decision-making style than lower risk participants. Task pressure elicited a hastier decision-making style across the whole sample, however, was unable to distinguish between higher and lower eating disorder risk status. LIMITATIONS: Interpretation of findings are limited to non-clinical samples and may not generalise to clinical eating disorder populations. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest the need for replication in a clinical eating disorder sample using the distractor beads task. Future research should investigate whether eating disorder salient stimuli elicits a stronger bias.

A Group-Facilitated, Internet-Based Intervention to Promote Mental Health and Well-Being in a Vulnerable Population of University Students: Randomized Controlled Trial of the Be Well Plan Program.

BACKGROUND: A growing literature supports the use of internet-based interventions to improve mental health outcomes. However, most programs target specific symptoms or participant groups and are not tailored to facilitate improvements in mental health and well-being or do not allow for needs and preferences of individual participants. The Be Well Plan, a 5-week group-facilitated, internet-based mental health and well-being group intervention addresses these gaps, allowing participants to select a range of activities that they can tailor to their specific characteristics, needs, and preferences. OBJECTIVE: This study aims to test whether the Be Well Plan program was effective in improving primary outcomes of mental well-being, resilience, anxiety, and depression compared to a waitlist control group during the COVID-19 pandemic; secondary outcomes included self-efficacy, a sense of control, and cognitive flexibility. The study further seeks to examine participants' engagement and satisfaction with the program. METHODS: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted with 2 parallel arms, an intervention and a waitlist control group. The intervention involved 5 weekly 2-hour sessions, which were facilitated in group format using Zoom videoconferencing software. University students were recruited via social media posts, lectures, emails, flyers, and posters. RESULTS: Using an intentional randomization 2:1 allocation strategy, we recruited 215 participants to the trial (n=126, 58.6%, intervention group; n=89, 41.4%, waitlist control group). Of the 126 participants assigned to the intervention group, 75 (59.5%) commenced the program and were included in modified intention-to-treat (mITT) analyses. mITT intervention participants attended, on average, 3.41 sessions (SD 1.56, median 4); 55 (73.3%) attended at least 4 sessions, and 25 (33.3%) attended all 5 sessions. Of the 49 intervention group participants who completed the postintervention assessment, 47 (95.9%) were either very satisfied (n=31, 66%) or satisfied (n=16, 34%). The mITT analysis for well-being (F1,162=9.65, P=.002, Cohen d=0.48) and resilience (F1,162=7.85, P=.006, Cohen d=0.44) showed significant time × group interaction effects, suggesting that both groups improved over time, but the Be Well Plan (intervention) group showed significantly greater improvement compared to the waitlist control group. A similar pattern of results was observed for depression and anxiety (Cohen d=0.32 and 0.37, respectively), as well as the secondary outcomes (self-efficacy, Cohen d=0.50; sense of control, Cohen d=0.42; cognitive flexibility, Cohen d=0.65). Larger effect sizes were observed in the completer analyses. Reliable change analysis showed that the majority of mITT participants (58/75, 77.3%) demonstrated a significant reliable improvement in at least 1 of the primary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The Be Well Plan program was effective in improving mental health and well-being, including mental well-being, resilience, depression, and anxiety. Participant satisfaction scores and attendance indicated a high degree of engagement and satisfaction with the program. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ACTRN12621000180819; https://tinyurl.com/2p8da5sk.