Search

OBJECTIVE: Few studies have examined relations between college sporting events and maladaptive health behaviors among non-athlete college students. PARTICIPANTS: 97 college students METHODS: Completed nightly surveys (alcohol, eating, physical activity, sexual risk taking, smoking) for 11 days around a National Championship game. RESULTS: Baseline stress and rumination was related to worse health behavior; mindfulness was related to better health behavior. Hierarchical linear modeling showed that all maladaptive health behaviors significantly increased the day of the sporting event compared to individuals’ baseline levels. Rumination significantly predicted a spike in alcohol use and sexual risk taking behavior on on the day of the Championship game. CONCLUSIONS: Risk factors for maladaptive health behaviors include stress and rumination, while mindfulness is protective. Interventions may work to make sports events on campus safer for students (e.g., condoms, reminder emails, mindfulness interventions for at risk groups); more research is needed.

Introduction: Rumination—thinking passively, negatively, and repetitively—is a common cognitive process that is associated with poor health behaviors. Rumination impacts health behaviors through two distinct behavioral pathways: acting too quickly (impulsivity) or not acting at all (amotivation), though no research to date has examined the conditions under which rumination may manifest in these two disparate behavioral paths. The presence of anxiety and depression may lead to the behavioral manifestations of rumination, which may then differentially impact health behavior patterns. In this study, we tested whether individuals reporting anxiety who ruminate will then act impulsively and individuals reporting depression who ruminate will then not act in the context of their daily health behaviors. Methods: We recruited 285 college students (mean age = 19.3; 76.8% female; 79.4% Caucasian) and had them complete a baseline survey and an 11-day online daily diary to assess associations among anxiety, depression, rumination, and health behaviors. Results: Rumination predicted health behaviors through both impulsivity and amotivation as expected. Moderation models revealed that rumination in the context of anxiety leads to impulsivity and rumination in the context of depression leads to amotivation. Limitations: The undergraduate sample limits the generalizability of this data. Discussion: These results show that those who report depression or anxiety are likely to experience more daily rumination and the deleterious behavioral manifestations of that rumination, which then affects health behavior engagement or avoidance. Future behavioral health interventions can perhaps specifically target impulsivity among individuals reporting anxiety and amotivation among individuals reporting depression in order to promote more healthy behaviors.

Highlights • Perceived vulnerability to COVID-19 (PVC) was positively related to COVID-19-related worries, social isolation, and traumatic stress (TS). • Both COVID-19-related worries and social isolation were significant mediators of the relationship between PVC and TS. • The indirect effect of PVC on TS through COVID-19-related worries was stronger for participants who reported greater social isolation. • Social isolation and disease-related worries may be important variables that can be targeted in interventions to reduce pandemic-related TS., The purpose of the present study was to propose and test two models to understand the relationship between perceived vulnerability to COVID-19 (PVC) and COVID-19-related traumatic stress (TS), as well as the variables that may mediate and moderate this relationship among individuals who have not yet been infected with COVID-19. Using an online survey, data were collected between late March and early April 2020. Participants were recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk and included 747 adults living in the United States. Supporting our hypotheses, results indicated that both COVID-19-related worries and social isolation were significant mediators of the relationship between PVC and TS (Model 1). In addition, the results of a moderated mediation analysis indicated that the indirect effect of PVC on TS through COVID-19-related worries was stronger for participants who reported greater social isolation (Model 2). Although future research is needed, these findings suggest that both social isolation and disease-related worries may be important variables that can be targeted in interventions to reduce pandemic-related TS.

Background Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. Objective This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. Methods A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. Results A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). Conclusions This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.

OBJECTIVE The relationship between emotion expressivity and psychological symptoms varies by race/ethnicity, and reduced expression of emotions has been implicated in risk for suicidal ideation. The present study examined differences in the relation between emotion expressivity and suicidal ideation through well-documented correlates of suicide risk (i.e., hopelessness, depressive symptoms) among Asian American subgroups compared with White emerging adults. METHOD A sample of 829 emerging adults, Ages 18 to 28 years, identifying as Asian American (27% East Asian, 18% South Asian, 11% Southeast Asian) or White (44%) completed measures of emotion expressivity, hopelessness, depressive symptoms, and suicidal ideation. RESULTS Lower emotion expressivity was statistically associated with higher levels of suicidal ideation, via hopelessness and depressive symptoms, among White, East Asian, and South Asian American emerging adults, but not among Southeast Asian Americans, though this difference in mediation was not statistically significant. CONCLUSION A focus on Asian Americans as a homogenous group occludes important ethnic differences in the relation between emotion expressivity and vulnerability to suicidal ideation. Ethnic differences in the function of emotion expressivity should be considered in suicide prevention and interventions among Asian American emerging adults. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

BACKGROUND Dyadic psychosocial interventions have been found beneficial both for people coping with mental or physical health conditions as well as their family members and friends who provide them with support. Delivering these interventions via electronic health (eHealth) may help increase their scalability. OBJECTIVE This scoping review aimed to provide the first comprehensive overview of dyadic eHealth interventions for individuals of all ages affected by mental or physical illness and their family members or friends who support them. The goal was to understand how dyadic eHealth interventions have been used and to highlight areas of research needed to advance dyadic eHealth intervention development and dissemination. METHODS A comprehensive electronic literature search of PubMed, EMBASE, Cochrane, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, and PsycINFO was conducted for articles published in the English language through March 2019. Eligible records described a psychosocial eHealth intervention that intervened with both care recipients and their support person. RESULTS A total of 7113 records were reviewed of which 101 met eligibility criteria. There were 52 unique dyadic eHealth interventions identified, which were tested across 73 different trials. Of the unique interventions, 33 were conducted among dyads of children and their supporting parent, 1 was conducted with an adolescent-young adult care recipient population, and the remaining 18 were conducted among adult dyads. Interventions targeting pediatric dyads most commonly addressed a mental health condition (n=10); interventions targeting adult dyads most commonly addressed cancer (n=9). More than three-fourths of interventions (n=40) required some human support from research staff or clinicians. Most studies (n=64) specified one or more primary outcomes for care recipients, whereas less than one-fourth (n=22) specified primary outcomes for support persons. Where specified, primary outcomes were most commonly self-reported psychosocial or health factors for both care recipients (n=43) and support persons (n=18). Results of the dyadic eHealth intervention tended to be positive for care recipients, but evidence of effects for support persons was limited because of few studies specifying primary outcomes for supporters. Trials of dyadic eHealth interventions were most commonly randomized controlled trials (RCTs; n=44), and RCTs most commonly compared the dyadic eHealth intervention to usual care alone (n=22). CONCLUSIONS This first comprehensive review of dyadic eHealth interventions demonstrates that there is substantial, diverse, and growing literature supporting this interventional approach. However, several significant gaps were identified. Few studies were designed to evaluate the unique effects of dyadic interventions relative to individual interventions. There was also limited assessment and reporting of outcomes for support persons, and there were no interventions meeting our eligibility criteria specifically targeting the needs of older adult dyads. Findings highlight areas of research opportunities for developing dyadic eHealth interventions for novel populations and for increasing access to dyadic care.