Predictors of Psychological Distress and Resilience in the Post-COVID-19 Era

25Citations
Citations of this article
105Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Your institution provides access to this article.

Abstract

Background: The COVID-19 global pandemic has had profound effects on mental health and wellbeing. The present study examined trends in distress and recovery in the aftermath of COVID-19 in China. Predictors that might increase risks or provide protections again distress were explored. Method: Participants were recruited using social media during the COVID-19 pandemic to complete a baseline and 6-week follow-up survey (N = 241). The change patterns of PTSD symptoms from baseline to follow-up were characterized using latent class growth analysis (LCGA). A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted to explore the differences in the depressive symptoms across trajectory groups. Multinominal logistic regression was performed to investigate potential predictors of the outcome trajectories. Results: Four longitudinal outcome trajectories were identified: chronic (PTSD symptoms remained high; 14.9%), resilient (symptoms remained low; 43.2%), recovered (symptoms decreased from symptomatic levels to asymptomatic; 19.5%), and delayed (symptoms increased from asymptomatic levels to symptomatic; 22.4%). Hopelessness and maladaptive coping strategies were unique predictors of distress and resilience as well as longer-term trajectories. Conclusion: Individuals evidenced four outcome trajectories of distress in the aftermath of COVID-19 in China. Despite the uncertainty and high levels of stress related to the pandemic, the majority of the sample demonstrated resilience and recovery. It is essential to identify individuals at risk for chronic and delayed distress in order to build resilience.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Lin, T., Yi, Z., Zhang, S., & Veldhuis, C. B. (2022). Predictors of Psychological Distress and Resilience in the Post-COVID-19 Era. International Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 29(4), 506–516. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12529-021-10036-8

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free