瑞典高中生的心理健康状况:环境敏感性和应对自我效能的关系

IF 3.1 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY
Mia M. Maurer, Eva Hoff, Daiva Daukantaitė
{"title":"瑞典高中生的心理健康状况:环境敏感性和应对自我效能的关系","authors":"Mia M. Maurer, Eva Hoff, Daiva Daukantaitė","doi":"10.1007/s10902-024-00847-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>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 (<i>M</i><sub><i>age</i></sub> = 18, <i>SD</i><sub><i>age</i></sub> = 0.85), five distinct mental health profiles emerged: <i>Complete mental health</i> (42.9%) exhibited above-average well-being and below-average distress<b>;</b> <i>Moderate mental health</i> (37.8%) showed average well-being and distress levels<b>;</b> <i>Vulnerable</i> (9.8%) had below-average well-being with slightly elevated distress; <i>Symptomatic but managing</i> (5.4%) reported below-average well-being and high distress; and <i>Troubled</i> (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 <i>Troubled</i> and <i>Symptomatic but managing</i> profiles, suggesting a higher prevalence of mental health challenges among female students. As expected, students in the <i>Complete mental health</i> profile exhibited higher aesthetic sensitivity and greater coping self-efficacy, while those in the <i>Troubled</i> 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.</p><p>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.</p>","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":"{\"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\":\"<p>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 (<i>M</i><sub><i>age</i></sub> = 18, <i>SD</i><sub><i>age</i></sub> = 0.85), five distinct mental health profiles emerged: <i>Complete mental health</i> (42.9%) exhibited above-average well-being and below-average distress<b>;</b> <i>Moderate mental health</i> (37.8%) showed average well-being and distress levels<b>;</b> <i>Vulnerable</i> (9.8%) had below-average well-being with slightly elevated distress; <i>Symptomatic but managing</i> (5.4%) reported below-average well-being and high distress; and <i>Troubled</i> (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 <i>Troubled</i> and <i>Symptomatic but managing</i> profiles, suggesting a higher prevalence of mental health challenges among female students. As expected, students in the <i>Complete mental health</i> profile exhibited higher aesthetic sensitivity and greater coping self-efficacy, while those in the <i>Troubled</i> 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.</p><p>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.</p>\",\"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}","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

摘要

心理健康双因素模型整合了积极和消极指标,以提供对心理健康概况更全面的了解。在这项横断面研究中,我们考察了瑞典高中生的心理健康状况,考察了幸福感的五个积极指标——连通性、毅力、乐观、幸福和参与——以及三个痛苦指标:抑郁症状、焦虑和压力。我们进一步调查了这些特征与性别、环境敏感性、应对自我效能以及与流行病相关的痛苦经历之间的关系。利用对846名学生样本(Mage = 18, SDage = 0.85)的潜在特征分析,出现了五种不同的心理健康特征:完全心理健康(42.9%)表现出高于平均水平的幸福感和低于平均水平的痛苦;中度心理健康(37.8%)表现出平均的幸福感和痛苦程度;弱势群体(9.8%)的幸福感低于平均水平,痛苦程度略高;有症状但得到控制的(5.4%)报告幸福感低于平均水平和高度痛苦;和“烦恼”(4.0%)表现出明显低于平均水平的幸福感和非常高的痛苦。性别在区分这些情况方面发挥了重要作用,女孩在“问题”和“症状”中所占比例特别高,但在管理方面,这表明女学生中心理健康挑战的发生率更高。正如预期的那样,“完全心理健康”组的学生表现出更高的审美敏感性和更高的应对自我效能感,而“麻烦”组的学生表现出最高的兴奋程度和最低的应对自我效能感,这表明两组学生在情绪调节和弹性方面存在明显的差异。有趣的是,尽管幸福感和痛苦程度存在明显差异,但在2019冠状病毒病大流行期间,不同人群的痛苦程度没有显著差异,尽管总体而言,女孩报告的与大流行相关的痛苦程度更高。这些发现为了解青少年不同的心理健康经历提供了重要的见解,强调了有针对性干预措施的必要性。解决心理健康状况不佳的学生的特殊需求,对于促进更健康和更具支持性的教育环境至关重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Mental Health Profiles Among Swedish High School Students: Relationships to Environmental Sensitivity and Coping Self-Efficacy

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
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?
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信