Search

In the published article, the citation for an author name was incorrectly written as Dijk et al. (2022). The correct spelling is Van Dijk et al. (2022). In the published article, the contributions of the author was reported using the initials WD. The correct use of the initials is WVD. In the published article, the reference for “Parenting stress can be assessed using a variety of measures, with some scales consisting only of items asking about parent domains, such as the Parenting Stress Scale (PSS)” was incorrectly written as (Crnic et al., 2002). It should be (Berry and Jones, 1995). In the published article, the reference for “and others comprising child domains as well, including the Parenting Stress Index (PSI)” was incorrectly written as (Deater-Deckard and Panneton, 2017). It should be (Abidin, 1995). In the published article, the reference for “And the Parenting Daily Hassles scale (PDH);” was incorrectly written as (Patterson, 1992). It should be (Crnic and Greenberg, 1990). The full citation for this reference is: Crnic, K. A., and Greenberg, M. T. (1990). Minor parenting stresses with young children. Child Dev. 61, 1628–1637. In the published article, the reference for [“…in their systematic review that parental warmth was negatively associated with behavioral outcomes in preterm children, as displayed by fewer internalizing and externalizing problems.] was incorrectly written as Baumrind (1971). It should be Neel et al. (2018). In the published article, the reference for “Families with children registered on the Child Benefit Register born between December 1st 2007 and June 30th 2008 could be included, with a total of 41,185 eligible children” was incorrectly written as (Rogosa, 1980). It should be (Quail et al., 2011). In the published article, the reference for “Children's emotional and behavioral problems were assessed by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ);” was incorrectly written a

Background: Higher social support protects people from developing mental disorders. Limited evidence is available on the mechanism through which social support plays this protective role. Objective: To investigate the stress-buffering process of social support on depressive symptoms using a novel longitudinal dynamic symptom network approach. Methods: A total of 4242 adult participants who completed the first two waves (from May to October 2020) of the International Covid Mental Health Survey were included in the study. Cross-lagged panel network modelling was used to estimate a longitudinal network of self-reported social support, loneliness and depressive symptoms. Standardised regression coefficients from regularised cross-lagged regressions were estimated as edge weights of the network. Findings: The results support a unidirectional protective effect of social support on key depressive symptoms, partly mediated through loneliness: A higher number of close confidants and accessible practical help was associated with decreased anhedonia (weight=-0.033) and negative self-appraisal symptoms (weight=-0.038). Support from others was also negatively associated with loneliness, which in turn associated with decreased depressed mood (weight=0.086) and negative self-appraisal (weight=0.077). We identified a greater number of direct relationships from social support to depressive symptoms among men compared with women. Also, the edge weights from social support to depression were generally stronger in the men's network. Conclusions: Reductions in negative self-appraisal might function as a bridge between social support and other depressive symptoms, and, thus, it may have amplified the protective effect of social support. Men appear to benefit more from social support than women. Clinical implications: Building community-based support networks to deliver practical support, and loneliness reduction components are critical for depression prevention interventions after stress

Introduction: Parenthood can be experienced as a pleasant but challenging period for parents, possibly accompanied by parenting stress. Early parenthood in particular is a vulnerable period as many parents experience biological and psychosocial changes related to new parenthood. Previous studies have shown that parenting stress is related to child behavior problems, but few studies have investigated the transactional relations across time between parenting stress and child internalizing and externalizing outcomes separately, examining within-person changes. The first aim of this study was to examine the transactional within-person associations of parenting stress and child internalizing and externalizing behavior problems across childhood from age 9 months to 9 years. As a second aim, we examined parenting as a possible underlying mechanism of the transactional associations by testing whether parental warmth and hostility mediate within-person associations of parenting stress and child behavior across time. Method: Data were analyzed from the Growing Up in Ireland longitudinal child cohort study including 7,208 caregiver-child dyads at wave 1 (child’s age 9 months), who were followed at child’s age three (wave 2), five (wave 3), and 9 years (wave 5). Primary caregiver’s and child’s age and gender, household income, occupational status, educational status, partner status, and cultural background were covariates assessed at all waves. Data were analyzed using a random intercept cross-lagged panel model (CLPM) in R-lavaan. Results: Bidirectional relations between parenting stress and child behavior were found for both internalizing and externalizing behavior from age 5 to 9, but not for earlier time points. Discussion: Our results did not indicate mediating effects of parental warmth or parental hostility in the associations between parenting stress and child behavior problems. Therefore, we conclude that parenting stress and child internalizing as well as parenting

Backgrounds: individuals with chronic medical conditions are considered highly exposed to COVID-19 pandemic stress, but emerging evidence is demonstrating that resilience is common even among them. We aimed at identifying sustained resilient outcomes and their predictors in chronically ill people during the first year of the pandemic. Methods: this international 4-wave 1-year longitudinal online survey included items on socio-demographic characteristics, economic and living situation, lifestyle and habits, pandemic-related issues, and history of mental disorders. Adherence to and approval of imposed restrictions, trust in governments and in scientific community during the pandemic were also investigated. The following tools were administered: the Patient Health Questionnaire, the Generalized Anxiety Disorder scale, the PTSD Checklist DSM-5, the Oslo Social Support Scale, the Padua Inventory, and the Portrait Values Questionnaire. Results: one thousand fifty-two individuals reporting a chronic condition out of 8011 total participants from 13 countries were included in the study, and 965 had data available for the final model. The estimated probability of being "sustained-resilient" was 34%. Older male individuals, participants employed before and during the pandemic or with perceived social support were more likely to belong to the sustained-resilience group. Loneliness, a previous mental disorder, high hedonism, fear of COVID-19 contamination, concern for the health of loved ones, and non-approving pandemic restrictions were predictors of not-resilient outcomes in our sample. Conclusions: we found similarities and differences from established predictors of resilience and identified some new ones specific to pandemics. Further investigation is warranted and could inform the design of resilience-building interventions in people with chronic diseases., NA