Matthew H E M Browning1, Lincoln R Larson2, Iryna Sharaievska3, Alessandro Rigolon4, Olivia McAnirlin1, Lauren Mullenbach2, Scott Cloutier5, Tue M Vu6, Jennifer Thomsen7, Nathan Reigner8, Elizabeth Covelli Metcalf7, Ashley D'Antonio9, Marco Helbich10, Gregory N Bratman11, Hector Olvera Alvarez12. 1. Virtual Reality & Nature Lab, Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States of America. 2. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, United States of America. 3. Department of Parks, Recreation and Tourism Management, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States of America. 4. Department of City and Metropolitan Planning, The University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, United States of America. 5. Sustainability and Happiness Research Lab, School of Sustainability, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, United States of America. 6. Advanced Computing & Data Science, Clemson Computing & Information Technology, Clemson University, Clemson, SC, United States of America. 7. Department of Society and Conservation, W.A. Franke College of Forestry and Conservation, University of Montana, Missoula, MT, United States of America. 8. Recreation, Park, and Tourism Management Department, College of Health and Human Development, Pennsylvania State University, PA, United States of America. 9. Forest Ecosystems and Society, College of Forestry, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR, United States of America. 10. Department of Human Geography and Spatial Planning, Faculty of Geosciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands. 11. Environment & Well-Being Lab, School of Environmental and Forest Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, United States of America. 12. School of Nursing, Oregon Health & Science University, Portland, OR, United States of America.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: University students are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable population, suffering from higher levels of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and disordered eating compared to the general population. Therefore, when the nature of their educational experience radically changes-such as sheltering in place during the COVID-19 pandemic-the burden on the mental health of this vulnerable population is amplified. The objectives of this study are to 1) identify the array of psychological impacts COVID-19 has on students, 2) develop profiles to characterize students' anticipated levels of psychological impact during the pandemic, and 3) evaluate potential sociodemographic, lifestyle-related, and awareness of people infected with COVID-19 risk factors that could make students more likely to experience these impacts. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected through web-based questionnaires from seven U.S. universities. Representative and convenience sampling was used to invite students to complete the questionnaires in mid-March to early-May 2020, when most coronavirus-related sheltering in place orders were in effect. We received 2,534 completed responses, of which 61% were from women, 79% from non-Hispanic Whites, and 20% from graduate students. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis on close-ended responses resulted in two latent constructs, which we used to identify profiles of students with latent profile analysis, including high (45% of sample), moderate (40%), and low (14%) levels of psychological impact. Bivariate associations showed students who were women, were non-Hispanic Asian, in fair/poor health, of below-average relative family income, or who knew someone infected with COVID-19 experienced higher levels of psychological impact. Students who were non-Hispanic White, above-average social class, spent at least two hours outside, or less than eight hours on electronic screens were likely to experience lower levels of psychological impact. Multivariate modeling (mixed-effects logistic regression) showed that being a woman, having fair/poor general health status, being 18 to 24 years old, spending 8 or more hours on screens daily, and knowing someone infected predicted higher levels of psychological impact when risk factors were considered simultaneously. CONCLUSION: Inadequate efforts to recognize and address college students' mental health challenges, especially during a pandemic, could have long-term consequences on their health and education.
BACKGROUND: University students are increasingly recognized as a vulnerable population, suffering from higher levels of anxiety, depression, substance abuse, and disordered eating compared to the general population. Therefore, when the nature of their educational experience radically changes-such as sheltering in place during the COVID-19 pandemic-the burden on the mental health of this vulnerable population is amplified. The objectives of this study are to 1) identify the array of psychological impacts COVID-19 has on students, 2) develop profiles to characterize students' anticipated levels of psychological impact during the pandemic, and 3) evaluate potential sociodemographic, lifestyle-related, and awareness of people infected with COVID-19 risk factors that could make students more likely to experience these impacts. METHODS: Cross-sectional data were collected through web-based questionnaires from seven U.S. universities. Representative and convenience sampling was used to invite students to complete the questionnaires in mid-March to early-May 2020, when most coronavirus-related sheltering in place orders were in effect. We received 2,534 completed responses, of which 61% were from women, 79% from non-Hispanic Whites, and 20% from graduate students. RESULTS: Exploratory factor analysis on close-ended responses resulted in two latent constructs, which we used to identify profiles of students with latent profile analysis, including high (45% of sample), moderate (40%), and low (14%) levels of psychological impact. Bivariate associations showed students who were women, were non-Hispanic Asian, in fair/poor health, of below-average relative family income, or who knew someone infected with COVID-19 experienced higher levels of psychological impact. Students who were non-Hispanic White, above-average social class, spent at least two hours outside, or less than eight hours on electronic screens were likely to experience lower levels of psychological impact. Multivariate modeling (mixed-effects logistic regression) showed that being a woman, having fair/poor general health status, being 18 to 24 years old, spending 8 or more hours on screens daily, and knowing someone infected predicted higher levels of psychological impact when risk factors were considered simultaneously. CONCLUSION: Inadequate efforts to recognize and address college students' mental health challenges, especially during a pandemic, could have long-term consequences on their health and education.
Authors: Shannon R Kenney; Graham T DiGuiseppi; Matthew K Meisel; Sara G Balestrieri; Nancy P Barnett Journal: Addict Behav Date: 2018-04-16 Impact factor: 3.913
Authors: Danielle F Shanahan; Robert Bush; Kevin J Gaston; Brenda B Lin; Julie Dean; Elizabeth Barber; Richard A Fuller Journal: Sci Rep Date: 2016-06-23 Impact factor: 4.379
Authors: M Pilar Fernandez; Kacey C Ernst; Gebbiena M Bron; Kevin Berry; Maria A Diuk-Wasser; Mary H Hayden Journal: Ecohealth Date: 2022-06-10 Impact factor: 4.464
Authors: Justin M Beall; S Brent Jackson; William R Casola; M Nils Peterson; Lincoln R Larson; Kathryn T Stevenson; Erin Seekamp Journal: Wellbeing Space Soc Date: 2022-07-16
Authors: Lucas Bloc; Juliana Lima de Araújo; João Marcos Leite; Sarah Rebeca Barreto; Karla Carneiro; Anna Karynne Melo; Georges Boris; Virginia Moreira Journal: Front Psychiatry Date: 2022-06-03 Impact factor: 5.435
Authors: Mark É Czeisler; Joshua F Wiley; Charles A Czeisler; Shantha M W Rajaratnam; Mark E Howard Journal: Epidemiol Psychiatr Sci Date: 2021-05-26 Impact factor: 6.892
Authors: Chang Liu; Melinda McCabe; Andrew Dawson; Chad Cyrzon; Shruthi Shankar; Nardin Gerges; Sebastian Kellett-Renzella; Yann Chye; Kim Cornish Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-22 Impact factor: 3.390