Mental Health Profiles Among Swedish High School Students: Relationships to Environmental Sensitivity and Coping Self-Efficacy

IF 3.1 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY

Journal of Happiness Studies Pub Date : 2025-02-24 DOI:10.1007/s10902-024-00847-3

Mia M. Maurer, Eva Hoff, Daiva Daukantaitė

{"title":"Mental Health Profiles Among Swedish High School Students: Relationships to Environmental Sensitivity and Coping Self-Efficacy","authors":"Mia M. Maurer, Eva Hoff, Daiva Daukantaitė","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00847-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Dual-factor models of mental health integrate both positive and negative indicators to provide a more comprehensive understanding of mental health profiles. In this cross-sectional study, we explored the mental health profiles of Swedish high school students by examining five positive indicators of well-being—connectedness, perseverance, optimism, happiness, and engagement—alongside three distress indicators: symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. We further investigated how these profiles related to gender, environmental sensitivity, coping self-efficacy, and the experience of pandemic-related distress. Utilizing latent profile analysis on a sample of 846 students (Mage = 18, SDage = 0.85), five distinct mental health profiles emerged: Complete mental health (42.9%) exhibited above-average well-being and below-average distress; Moderate mental health (37.8%) showed average well-being and distress levels; Vulnerable (9.8%) had below-average well-being with slightly elevated distress; Symptomatic but managing (5.4%) reported below-average well-being and high distress; and Troubled (4.0%) displayed significantly below-average well-being with very high distress. Gender played a significant role in differentiating these profiles, with girls particularly overrepresented in the Troubled and Symptomatic but managing profiles, suggesting a higher prevalence of mental health challenges among female students. As expected, students in the Complete mental health profile exhibited higher aesthetic sensitivity and greater coping self-efficacy, while those in the Troubled profile showed the highest ease of excitation and lowest coping self-efficacy, indicating a stark contrast in emotional regulation and resilience between the profiles. Interestingly, despite clear variations in well-being and distress, no significant differences were found between profiles in terms of distress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, although girls reported higher levels of pandemic-related distress overall.These findings offer critical insights into the diverse mental health experiences of adolescents, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions. Addressing the specific needs of students in compromised mental health profiles is essential to promoting a healthier and more supportive educational environment.","PeriodicalId":15837,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Happiness Studies","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-02-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Happiness Studies","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-024-00847-3","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Dual-factor models of mental health integrate both positive and negative indicators to provide a more comprehensive understanding of mental health profiles. In this cross-sectional study, we explored the mental health profiles of Swedish high school students by examining five positive indicators of well-being—connectedness, perseverance, optimism, happiness, and engagement—alongside three distress indicators: symptoms of depression, anxiety, and stress. We further investigated how these profiles related to gender, environmental sensitivity, coping self-efficacy, and the experience of pandemic-related distress. Utilizing latent profile analysis on a sample of 846 students (M_age = 18, SD_age = 0.85), five distinct mental health profiles emerged: Complete mental health (42.9%) exhibited above-average well-being and below-average distress; Moderate mental health (37.8%) showed average well-being and distress levels; Vulnerable (9.8%) had below-average well-being with slightly elevated distress; Symptomatic but managing (5.4%) reported below-average well-being and high distress; and Troubled (4.0%) displayed significantly below-average well-being with very high distress. Gender played a significant role in differentiating these profiles, with girls particularly overrepresented in the Troubled and Symptomatic but managing profiles, suggesting a higher prevalence of mental health challenges among female students. As expected, students in the Complete mental health profile exhibited higher aesthetic sensitivity and greater coping self-efficacy, while those in the Troubled profile showed the highest ease of excitation and lowest coping self-efficacy, indicating a stark contrast in emotional regulation and resilience between the profiles. Interestingly, despite clear variations in well-being and distress, no significant differences were found between profiles in terms of distress experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic, although girls reported higher levels of pandemic-related distress overall.

These findings offer critical insights into the diverse mental health experiences of adolescents, emphasizing the need for targeted interventions. Addressing the specific needs of students in compromised mental health profiles is essential to promoting a healthier and more supportive educational environment.

查看原文本刊更多论文

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of Happiness Studies Multiple-

CiteScore

8.60

自引率

6.50%

发文量

110

期刊介绍： The international peer-reviewed Journal of Happiness Studies is devoted to theoretical and applied advancements in all areas of well-being research. It covers topics referring to both the hedonic and eudaimonic perspectives characterizing well-being studies. The former includes the investigation of cognitive dimensions such as satisfaction with life, and positive affect and emotions. The latter includes the study of constructs and processes related to optimal psychological functioning, such as meaning and purpose in life, character strengths, personal growth, resilience, optimism, hope, and self-determination. In addition to contributions on appraisal of life-as-a-whole, the journal accepts papers investigating these topics in relation to specific domains, such as family, education, physical and mental health, and work. The journal welcomes high-quality theoretical and empirical submissions in the fields of economics, psychology and sociology, as well as contributions from researchers in the domains of education, medicine, philosophy and other related fields. The Journal of Happiness Studies provides a forum for three main areas in happiness research: 1) theoretical conceptualizations of well-being, happiness and the good life; 2) empirical investigation of well-being and happiness in different populations, contexts and cultures; 3) methodological advancements and development of new assessment instruments. The journal addresses the conceptualization, operationalization and measurement of happiness and well-being dimensions, as well as the individual, socio-economic and cultural factors that may interact with them as determinants or outcomes. Central Questions include, but are not limited to: Conceptualization: What meanings are denoted by terms like happiness and well-being? How do these fit in with broader conceptions of the good life? Operationalization and Measurement: Which methods can be used to assess how people feel about life? How to operationalize a new construct or an understudied dimension in the well-being domain? What are the best measures for investigating specific well-being related constructs and dimensions? Prevalence and causality Do individuals belonging to different populations and cultures vary in their well-being ratings? How does individual well-being relate to social and economic phenomena (characteristics, circumstances, behavior, events, and policies)? What are the personal, social and economic determinants and causes of individual well-being dimensions? Evaluation: What are the consequences of well-being for individual development and socio-economic progress? Are individual happiness and well-being worthwhile goals for governments and policy makers? Does well-being represent a useful parameter to orient planning in physical and mental healthcare, and in public health? Interdisciplinary studies: How has the study of happiness developed within and across disciplines? Can we link philosophical thought and empirical research? What are the biological correlates of well-being dimensions?