Resilience level and its association with maladaptive coping behaviours in the COVID-19 pandemic: a global survey of the general populations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has induced a significant global concern on mental health. However few studies have measured the ability of individuals to "withstand setbacks, adapt positively, and bounce back from adversity" on a global scale. We aimed to examine the level of resilience, its determinants, and its association with maladaptive coping behaviours during the pandemic. METHODS: The Association of Pacific Rim Universities (APRU) conducted a global survey involving 26 countries by online, self-administered questionnaire (October 2020-December 2021). It was piloted-tested and validated by an expert panel of epidemiologists and primary care professionals. We collected data on socio-demographics, socioeconomic status, clinical information, lifestyle habits, and resilience levels measured by the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS) among adults aged ≥ 18 years. We examined factors associated with low resilience level, and evaluated whether low resilience was correlated with engagement of maladaptive coping behaviours. RESULTS: From 1,762 surveys, the prevalence of low resilience level (BRS score 1.00-2.99) was 36.4% (America/Europe) and 24.1% (Asia Pacific). Young age (18-29 years; adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 0.31-0.58 in older age groups), female gender (aOR = 1.72, 95% C.I. = 1.34-2.20), poorer financial situation in the past 6 months (aOR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.62-3.34), the presence of one (aOR = 1.56, 95% C.I. = 1.19-2.04) and more than two (aOR = 2.32, 95% C.I. = 1.59-3.39) medical conditions were associated with low resilience level. Individuals with low resilience were significantly more likely to consume substantially more alcohol than usual (aOR = 3.84, 95% C.I. = 1.62-9.08), take considerably more drugs (aOR = 12.1, 95% C.I. = 2.72-54.3), buy supplements believed to be good for treating COVID-19 (aOR = 3.34, 95% C.I. = 1.56-7.16), exercise less than before the pandemic (aOR = 1.76, 95% C.I. = 1.09-2.85), consume more unhealthy food than before the pandemic (aOR = 2.84, 95% C.I. = 1.72-4.67), self-isolate to stay away from others to avoid infection (aOR = 1.83, 95% C.I. = 1.09-3.08), have an excessive urge to disinfect hands for avoidance of disease (aOR = 3.08, 95% C.I. = 1.90-4.99) and transmission (aOR = 2.54, 95% C.I. = 1.57-4.10). CONCLUSIONS: We found an association between low resilience and maladaptive coping behaviours in the COVID-19 pandemic. The risk factors identified for low resilience in this study were also conditions known to be related to globalization-related economic and social inequalities. Our findings could inform design of population-based, resilience-enhancing intervention programmes.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".