Stress, perceived support, resourcefulness and depressive symptoms in Taiwanese adolescents
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIMS AND OBJECTIVE: This study investigated (1) the prevalence of self-reported depressive symptoms among first-year students at an Institute of Technology in southern Taiwan; (2) whether perceived support and resourcefulness were associated with these adolescents' depressive symptoms and (3) the moderating and mediating effects of learned resourcefulness on the relationship between stressors and the adolescents' depressive symptoms. BACKGROUND: An individual with adequate social support or resourcefulness may see stressors as less threatening or be more resilient in dealing with stressors compared with depressed individuals. The prevalence of depression in the global population increased rapidly during this past decade and consequently may have had a negative impact on population health outcomes. Among adolescents there has recently been an increased incidence of depression-related suicide reports. DESIGN: A cross-sectional, correlational design. METHOD: Adolescents (n = 913) were recruited to complete the following: the SDI in Chinese, the Inventory of Social Supportive Behaviours Scale - Modified and the Self-Control Schedule. Data analysis consisted of Pearson correlation and multiple regression analysis. Results. The prevalence of depression among participants was 13.4%. Participants who were younger, expressed lower satisfaction with their grades, perceived their health as worse, described peer relationship problems and exhibited smoking behaviour were more likely to have depressive symptoms. We observed five partially mediating effects of resourcefulness on stressors (age, perceived health, peer relationships, grades satisfaction and smoking behaviour) and depressive symptoms and one moderating effect of resourcefulness on the relationship between peer and depressive symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: Learned resourcefulness may play a critical role in decreasing depressive symptoms. RELEVANCE TO CLINICAL PRACTICE: These findings offer healthcare providers and educators information about the need for possible cognitive-behavioural interventions that could improve adolescents' relationships with their peers, enhance their satisfaction of grades and moderate or prevent depressive symptoms among this population. Moreover, it might decrease the prevalence of adolescent suicide.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".