| Literature DB >> 33727756 |
Yan Zhang1, Xiaochen Cao1, Yufei Xie2, Qiongyao Zhong3, Guanghui Lei4, Jingyuan Zhang4, Qiang Xiao5, Guixiang Wang6, Yueran Bian1, Simiao Xie1, Fei Huang1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The outbreak of COVID-19 has caused extremely many serious consequences for the country and the world. In fact, it has seriously affected people's mental health. The purpose of this study is to understand the psychological stress among college students in different stages of epidemics in hard-hit areas such as Hubei. Moreover, to highlight the factors that influencing, their psychological conditions with the emphasis of further corresponding suggestions.Entities:
Keywords: COVID-19; Different stages; Epidemic; Hubei Province; Stress reaction
Year: 2021 PMID: 33727756 PMCID: PMC7952129 DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2021.105980
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Child Youth Serv Rev ISSN: 0190-7409
Items loadings, eigenvalues, and variance of the Stress Response with PCA.
| Factor | Item | Number | Loading | Eigenvalue | % of variance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cognition of danger | The severity of the epidemic | Q9 | 0.77 | 1.11 | 6.71 |
| Necessary of isolation | Q12 | 0.80 | |||
| Cognition of illness | Own risk | Q10 | 0.65 | 1.77 | 8.03 |
| Probability of catching the COVID-19 | Q11 | 0.71 | |||
| COVID-19 can be cured | Q28 | 0.66 | |||
| Emotional responses | More nervous | Q13 | 0.81 | 6.00 | 19.04 |
| Afraid for no reason | Q14 | 0.80 | |||
| Easily upset or frightened | Q15 | 0.88 | |||
| Feel depressed | Q16 | 0.82 | |||
| More anxious | Q17 | 0.82 | |||
| Somatic reactions | Losing appetite | Q18 | 0.78 | 1.21 | 6.89 |
| Sleep less | Q19 | 0.72 | |||
| Sleep worse | Q20 | 0.45 | |||
| Stress susceptibility | Easily angry | Q23 | 0.70 | 2.01 | 15.97 |
| More moody | Q24 | 0.82 | |||
| Afraid of catching COVID-19 | Q25 | 0.73 | |||
| Troubled with COVID-19 | Q26 | 0.57 | |||
| Hard to focus on things except COVID-19 | Q27 | 0.82 | |||
| Full of stress | Q29 | 0.60 | |||
| Stress adjustment | Need psychological counseling | Q21 | 0.86 | 1.47 | 7.93 |
| Need talking to families | Q22 | 0.80 |
Correlation test of items in the questionnaire (n = 363).
| Items | CD | CI | ER | SR | SS | SA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CD | 1.00 | |||||
| CI | 0.14** | 1.00 | ||||
| ER | 0.00 | 0.38** | 1.00 | |||
| SR | −0.04 | 0.00 | 0.06 | 1.00 | ||
| SS | 0.03 | 0.22** | 0.55** | 0.16** | 1.00 | |
| SA | 0.08 | 0.04 | 0.02 | −0.05 | 0.18** | 1.00 |
Note **p<0.01 (two-tailed test).
CD: cognition of danger, CI: cognition of illness, ER: emotional responses, SR: somatic reactions, SS: stress susceptibility, SA: stress adjustment.
Fig. 1Fitting indexes of the model.
T-test of six variances on January and February.
| SS | January | 2.33 ± 0.75 | −11.91 | <0.001 |
| February | 2.45 ± 0.66 | |||
| SA | January | 3.34 ± 0.90 | 95.75 | <0.001 |
| February | 2.08 ± 0.84 | |||
| CD | January | 4.30 ± 0.63 | 46.8 | <0.001 |
| February | 3.78 ± 0.82 | |||
| CI | January | 2.52 ± 0.61 | 23.52 | <0.001 |
| February | 2.29 ± 0.66 | |||
| ER | January | 1.48 ± 0.56 | −58.5 | <0.001 |
| February | 2.03 ± 0.69 | |||
| SR | January | 1.91 ± 0.32 | 63.41 | <0.001 |
| February | 1.48 ± 0.54 |
Note SS: stress susceptibility, SA: stress adjustment, CD: cognition of danger, CI: cognition of illness, ER: emotional responses, SR: somatic reactions.
T-test of 6 dimensions based on sex.
| SS | Male | 2.34 ± 0.74 | −7.53 | <0.001 |
| Female | 2.43 ± 0.68 | |||
| SA | Male | 2.61 ± 1.10 | −9.41 | <0.001 |
| Female | 2.77 ± 1.05 | |||
| CD | Male | 3.94 ± 0.85 | −14.96 | <0.001 |
| Female | 4.12 ± 0.71 | |||
| CI | Male | 2.34 ± 0.68 | −10.81 | <0.001 |
| Female | 2.45 ± 0.62 | |||
| ER | Male | 1.70 ± 0.70 | −10.07 | <0.001 |
| Female | 1.81 ± 0.68 | |||
| SR | Male | 1.69 ± 0.49 | −5.95 | 0.91 |
| Female | 1.69 ± 0.50 | |||
Note SS: stress susceptibility, SA: stress adjustment, CD: cognition of danger, CI: cognition of illness, ER: emotional responses, SR: somatic reactions.