Assessing Resilience and Its Correlates among Residents of Fort McMurray during the COVID-19 Pandemic
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease of 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a global health crisis that has affected the psychological well-being of individuals across the world. The persistence of the pandemic and measures to curtail it have tested people's ability to cope successfully and bounce back from the pandemic, otherwise referred to as resilience. The present study examined resilience levels among residents of Fort McMurray and identified the demographic, clinical and social factors associated with resilience. METHODS: The study used a cross-sectional survey design and collected data from 186 participants using online questionnaires. The survey included questions assessing sociodemographic information, mental health history and COVID-19-related variables. The main study outcome was resilience measured using the six-item Brief Resilience Scale (BRS). The data from the survey were analyzed using chi-squared tests and binary logistic regression analyses in the Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS), version 25. RESULTS: The results showed that seven independent variables (age, history of depression, history of anxiety, willingness to receive mental health counselling, support from the government of Alberta and support from employer) were statistically significant within the context of the logistic regression model. A history of an anxiety disorder was demonstrated to best predict low resilience. Participants who had a history of anxiety disorder were five times more likely to show low resilience compared to those without such a history. Participants with a history of depression showed a three-fold likelihood of having low resilience in comparison to those who did not have a history of depression. Individuals who expressed a desire to receive mental health counselling had a four-times likelihood of having low resilience than those who did not express a desire to receive mental health counselling. The results also showed that younger participants were more prone to low resilience compared to older participants. Receiving support from the government and one's employer is a protective factor. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights the importance of examining resilience and its associated factors during a pandemic such as COVID-19. The results demonstrated that a history of anxiety disorder, depression and being younger were important predictors of low resilience. Responders who reported the desire to receive mental health counselling also reported expressing low resilience. These findings could be used to design and implement interventions aimed at improving the resilience of individuals affected by the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".