| Literature DB >> 35587333 |
Valentina Colonnello1, Edita Fino2, Paolo Maria Russo2.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Several studies report that medical students are at high risk of depression. Despite the variability in students' vulnerability to depression, the role of individual differences in depression risk among medical students has hardly been investigated. Studies outside of medical student populations have shown that individual differences in attachment style and emotion regulation participate in vulnerability to depression.Entities:
Keywords: Anxious attachment; Emotion regulation strategies; Medical students
Mesh:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35587333 PMCID: PMC9391533 DOI: 10.1007/s40037-022-00713-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Perspect Med Educ ISSN: 2212-2761
Mean (SD) and intercorrelations (r) between the Attachment Style Questionnaire (ASQ), the Difficulties in Emotion Regulation Scale (DERS), and the Zung Self-Report Depression Scale (ZSDS)
| M | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 29.76 (5.31) | – | −0.67 | 0.38* | −0.52* | −0.26* | 0.22* | −0.16* | −0.18* | −0.39* | −0.18* | −0.37* | −0.48 | |
| 2 | 37.16 (7.64) | −0.67″ | – | 0.55* | 0.38* | 0.16 | −0.11 | 0.16* | 0.19* | 0.36* | 0.24* | 0.33* | 0.36* | |
| 3 | 16.60 (4.70) | −0.38* | 0.55* | – | 0.23* | 0.02 | −0.19 | 0.06 | 0.′13″ | 0.20″ | 0.21″ | 0.27″ | 0.50* | |
| 4 | 21.17 (5.63) | −0.52* | 0.38* | 0.23* | – | 0.51* | −0.08 | 0.39* | 0.31* | 0.50* | 0.33* | 0.54* | 0.35* | |
| 5 | 30.13 (5.57) | −0.26* | 0.16 | 0.02 | 0.51* | – | 0.15 | 0.30* | 0.28* | 0.31* | 0.21* | 0.42* | 0.26* | |
| 6 | 21.95 (4.58) | 0.22* | −0.11 | −0.19 | −0.08 | 0.15 | – | 0.14 | 0.14 | −0.08 | −0.22 | 0.06 | −0.20* | |
| 7 | 15.51 (3.68) | −0.16* | 0.16* | 0.06 | 0.39* | 0.30* | 0.14 | – | 0.52* | 0.36* | 0.26* | 0.58* | 0.34* | |
| 8 | 13.10 (3.85) | −0.18* | 0.19* | 0.13″ | 0.31* | 0.28* | 0.14 | 0.52* | – | 0.39* | 0.26* | 0.63* | 0.42* | |
| 9 | 14.12 (6.34) | −0.39* | 0.36* | 0.20″ | 0.50* | 0.31* | −0.08 | 0.36* | 0.39* | – | 0.23* | 0.63* | 0.50* | |
| 10 | 11.28 (2.65) | −0.18* | 0.24* | 0.21″ | 0.33* | 0.21* | −0.22 | 0.26* | 0.26* | 0.23* | – | 0.33* | 0.44* | |
| 11 | 19.82 (5.87) | −0.37* | 0.33* | 0.27″ | 0.54* | 0.42* | 0.06 | 0.58* | 0.63* | 0.63* | 0.33* | – | 0.57* | |
| 12 | 38.01 (7.99) | −0.48* | 0.36* | 0.50* | 0.35* | 0.26* | −0.20* | 0.34* | 0.42* | 0.50* | 0.44* | 0.57* | – | |
*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01
Fig. 1The mediating role of limited access to strategies in the relationship between depression and a need for approval and b preoccupation with relationships. Standardized coefficients of direct and indirect (in brackets) effects are presented