Abstract
Aim
This study examined the psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on university students, focusing on how adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) and positive childhood experiences (PCEs) influence mental health.
Methods
A web‐based survey was administered to 3000 university students from October 26 to 31, 2022, following the peak of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Mental health assessments included the Japanese version of the Kessler Psychological Distress 6‐Item Scale (K6) for depressive/anxiety symptoms, the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised (IES‐R‐J) for distress, fear of COVID‐19, and a three‐item loneliness scale.
Results
Of the respondents, 46.9% reported depressive/anxiety symptoms, 55.4% reported distress, and 37.3% reported fear of COVID‐19. Factors such as current psychiatric treatment history and reduced income (either parental or personal) were predictive of worsening depressive/anxiety symptoms, distress, and loneliness. ACEs were found to exacerbate depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress, while PCEs mitigated these symptoms, and vice versa.
Conclusion
This study underscores the importance of considering both ACEs and PCEs in supporting the mental health of university students. PCEs were found to independently prevent mental health deterioration, including depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress, which may include post‐traumatic stress disorder symptoms, even in the presence of ACEs. Recognizing and fostering PCEs emerged as an effective strategy for mitigating mental health issues.
Keywords: adverse childhood experiences, depressive/anxiety symptoms, distress, positive childhood experiences, university students
INTRODUCTION
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) is an emerging infectious disease caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus (SARS‐CoV‐2). Initially detected in Wuhan, China, in December 2019, it has since led to numerous infections and fatalities. In Japan, preventive measures against the COVID‐19 pandemic have been enforced through the declaration of a state of emergency and prioritized actions to curb its spread. Mandates such as mask‐wearing, avoiding crowded spaces, and maintaining social distancing have been advocated to prevent transmission. This global health crisis has triggered various psychological responses, including traumatic stress symptoms, depression, anxiety, confusion, anger, insomnia, and suicidal ideation, with students being particularly susceptible to mental health challenges. 1 , 2
Since the onset of the COVID‐19 pandemic, Japan has witnessed a rise in suicides, particularly among women and young individuals. 3 This trend suggests a potential exacerbation of mental health issues due to the pandemic. Students, in particular, have faced unique challenges, including isolation resulting from university closures and the prioritization of online classes. Noda et al. 4 conducted a survey in May 2020, during the initial state of emergency (April 7 to May 25, 2020), and 1 month thereafter, revealing that at least 50% of respondents exhibited mild or greater depressive/anxiety symptoms according to the Japanese version of the Kessler Psychological Distress 6‐Item Scale (K6). 5
There is ongoing debate regarding whether the COVID‐19 pandemic qualifies as a traumatic stressor leading to post‐traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Illnesses (DSM‐5) 6 guidelines, which indicate that a life‐threatening or debilitating medical illness may not necessarily be considered a traumatic event. 7 However, a substantial body of research supports the perspective that COVID‐19 can indeed be construed as a traumatic stressor, eliciting PTSD‐like reactions and exacerbating other related mental health issues. 8 , 9 We adopted this perspective to investigate PTSD symptoms among students. This study used the Japanese version of the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised (IES‐R‐J) 10 to assess distress that may include PTSD symptoms.
In a study examining adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) in the United States during the 1990s, events such as familial abuse and mental illness experienced by individuals up to age 18 years were deemed traumatic, correlating with chronic diseases, mental health disorders, and substance abuse in adolescence and beyond. 11 Among college students, higher ACE levels correlate with increased risk of mental health decline over time. 12 ACEs have been shown to impact students' mental health during COVID‐19 lockdowns. 13 Concurrently, during the pandemic, a greater number of ACEs may pose a risk for poorer mental health outcomes.
Conversely, higher levels of positive childhood experiences (PCEs), such as growing up with a supportive caregiver, having close friendships, and maintaining a predictable home routine, predict better mental health in adulthood. 14 , 15
Additionally, research has shown that, during the pandemic, aside from ACEs, the presence of PCEs, including having supportive caregivers or friends, is associated with decreased depressive symptoms, stress, and loneliness. 16 However, research on PCEs in Japan remains limited. Given concerns about the deteriorating mental health of students amid the ongoing pandemic, we continuously monitored their mental well‐being and explored risk factors for a decline in their mental health. Three years post the COVID‐19 outbreak in Japan, we examined the impact of ACEs and PCEs on students' mental health, along with factors such as COVID‐19 awareness and sense of coherence (SOC), as investigated by Noda et al. 4 in their study on students' mental health during the pandemic. We hypothesized that PCEs would mitigate the effects of ACEs on depressive/anxiety symptoms, distress, fear of COVID‐19, and loneliness.
METHODS
Participants and procedure
A web survey of students was conducted via MyVoice.com Inc., from October 26 to October 31, 2022, following the COVID‐19 wave that occurred between July 1, 2022, and September 30, 2022. A total of 3000 students participated in the survey, with 1480 (49.3%) identifying as male, an equal number identifying as female, 20 (0.7%) reporting as neither sex, and 20 (0.7%) omitting a response. Respondents were incentivized with points redeemable for Amazon gift certificates and other items valued at approximately $4.
During this COVID‐19 wave, approximately 1.47 million individuals were infected, marking the highest number compared to previous waves. Notably, individuals in their teens and twenties accounted for about 40% of the total infections, with the Omicron BA5 strain being predominant. The age range of respondents spanned from 18 to 25 years, with a mean age (standard deviation [SD]) of 20.6 (1.5) years. Among participants, 163 (5.4%) reported currently receiving psychiatric treatment.
MEASURES
Depressive/anxiety symptoms, distress, loneliness, and SOC
The K6, 5 designed to screen for depressive/anxiety symptoms over the preceding 30 days, assessed students' mental health status. Participants rated various statements on a five‐point scale (0 = not at all to 4 = daily). Total scores ranged from 0 to 24 points (0–4: no symptoms; 5–9: mild symptoms; 10–12: moderate symptoms; and 13–24: severe symptoms).
The IES‐R‐J was employed to evaluate distress. 10 This self‐report measure, aligned with the DSM‐IV definition of PTSD, 17 assessed the difficulty of 22 items experienced after high‐stress events (eight intrusion items, eight avoidance, and six hyperarousal). Respondents rated the difficulty of each aspect over the past week on a five‐point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 4 (extremely), yielding a total score range of 0–88 points. PTSD is suspected with a score of 25 points or more.
To evaluate loneliness, we employed the Japanese version of the three‐item loneliness scale (TIL). 18 This scale comprised three items: (1) I feel that I lack companionship, (2) I feel left out, and (3) I feel isolated from others. Respondents rated the degree of each loneliness aspect on a four‐point Likert scale (1 = never to 4 = often), resulting in a scale score range of 3–12.
We considered SOC as a measure of resilience and utilized the University of Tokyo Health Sociology version of the three‐item Sense of Coherence Scale (SOC‐3‐UTHS) 19 to assess SOC. Developed based on Antonovsky's concept of SOC, 20 this instrument employs a seven‐point scale to explore three dimensions: comprehensibility, manageability, and meaningfulness.
Demographic information and changes in COVID‐19 awareness
Participants provided demographic details including sex, age, residential area, university affiliation, grade, and current psychiatric treatment (see Table 1).
Table 1.
Demographic characteristics (N = 3000).
| Characteristic | N | % | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Gender | Male | 1480 | 49.3 |
| Female | 1480 | 49.3 | |
| Neither | 20 | 0.7 | |
| No answer | 20 | 0.7 | |
| University establishing body | National | 663 | 22.1 |
| Public | 234 | 7.8 | |
| Private | 2103 | 70.1 | |
| Grade | 1st year | 623 | 20.8 |
| 2nd year | 702 | 23.4 | |
| 3rd year | 665 | 22.2 | |
| 4th year＋ | 1010 | 33.7 | |
| Geographic area | Hokkaido | 111 | 3.7 |
| Tohoku | 171 | 5.7 | |
| Kantou | 1182 | 39.4 | |
| Hokuriku | 119 | 4.0 | |
| Choubu | 347 | 11.6 | |
| Kinki | 628 | 20.9 | |
| Chougoku | 160 | 5.3 | |
| Shikoku | 59 | 2.0 | |
| Kyushu | 223 | 7.4 | |
| Current psychiatric treatment | Yes | 163 | 5.4 |
| Age (SD), years | 20.6 | 1.5 |
Abbreviation: SD, standard deviation.
Additionally, participants were queried about their COVID‐19 awareness and economic concerns, responding to statements such as “I feel afraid of COVID‐19,” “I feel stressed about changes in my daily life due to COVID‐19 prevention measures,” “I am worried about my future because of COVID‐19,” and “I feel insecure due to reduced income for myself or my guardian.” Using a five‐point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 2 = disagree, 3 = undecided, 4 = agree, 5 = strongly agree) participants rated their sentiments over the past 30 days (see Table 2).
Table 2.
Awareness of COVID‐19 and economic problems in the past 30 days (N = 3000).
| Strongly disagree | Disagree | Undecided | Agree | Strongly agree | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Stressed by COVID‐19 prevention | 968 (32.3) | 629 (21.0) | 526 (17.5) | 717 (23.9) | 160 (5.3) |
| Feeling uncertain about future due to COVID‐19 | 1040 (34.7) | 577 (19.2) | 594 (19.8) | 604 (20.1) | 185 (6.2) |
| I feel afraid of COVID‐19 | 716 (23.9) | 538 (17.9) | 626 (20.9) | 841 (28.0) | 279 (9.3) |
| Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself | 1147 (38.2) | 611 (20.4) | 634 (21.1) | 427 (14.2) | 181 (6.0) |
Note: N (%).
ACEs and PCEs
To assess ACEs, participants responded with yes or no to 10 items, inquiring whether they had experienced the following before the age of 18 years: (1) psychological abuse, (2) physical abuse, (3) sexual abuse, (4) psychological neglect, (5) parental divorce or separation, (6) family mental illness or suicide, (7) witnessing domestic violence, (8) family substance abuse, (9) abandonment, and (10) family member imprisonment. 21 , 22 The ACE score represented the count of items receiving a positive response.
For PCEs assessment, we employed the benevolent childhood experiences Scale, a 10‐item questionnaire developed by Narayan et al. 14 and translated into Japanese with Professor Narayan's permission. To enhance comprehension among Japanese participants, we replaced “beliefs” with “places” in the item “Did you have beliefs that gave comfort.” Additionally, the original text was interpreted and translated into Japanese for better understanding. Participants responded with yes or no regarding experiences before the age of 18 years, including having a safe caregiver, a good friend, comforting places, enjoying school, a caring teacher, good neighbors, supportive adults, enjoyable activities, positive self‐concept, and predictable home routine. The PCEs score represented the count of items receiving a positive response.
Due to the sensitive nature of ACE and PCE questions, participants unwilling to answer were not obliged to do so. Results showed that 2713 (90.4%) respondents completed all ACE items (M = 0.56, SD = 1.37, range = 0–10). Among these respondents, 75.7% reported none of the items as applicable, while 0.5% reported all 10 items as applicable.
Regarding the PCEs Scale, 2575 (85.8%) respondents answered all items (M = 7.29, SD = 3.13, range = 0–10). Among these respondents, 7.8% reported none of the items as applicable, while 34.0% reported all 10 items as applicable.
Data analysis
Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 29.0. Pearson correlations were employed to examine the associations among the K6, IES‐R‐J, TIL, SOC‐3‐UTHS, ACEs, and PCEs. Subsequently, we investigated the significant relationships of ACEs, PCEs, and covariates with: (1) depressive/anxiety symptoms (K6), (2) distress (IES‐R‐J), (3) fear of COVID‐19, and (4) loneliness (TIL), using hierarchical logistic regression analysis. Dummy variables were established for the dependent variables. The cutoff points for K6 and IES‐R‐J were set at 9/10 and 24/25, respectively, with dummy variables assigned as 0 or values below the cutoff point and 1 for values above it. While TIL has been tested for reliability and validity, no cutoff point has been established. Therefore, loneliness was defined as a TIL score <7 = 0 and TIL score ≥7 = 1, given that the mean TIL score was 7 (rounded). Fear of COVID‐19 was designated as 0 if the respondent answered “I feel afraid of COVID‐19” with strongly disagree, disagree, or undecided, and 1 if the respondent answered agree or strongly agree. Covariates included sex, age, current psychiatric treatment, feelings of insecurity due to reduced income, and SOC‐3‐UTHS score.
To examine the effects of ACEs and PCEs on the four dependent variables, hierarchical logistic regression analysis was conducted with five covariates in the first step. ACE scores were added to the five covariates in the second step, and PCE scores were added in the third step. PCE scores were added to the five covariates in the fourth step. Missing values were only found for ACEs and PCEs, ranging from 2.2% to 3.3% of the data for each of the ACEs and from 2.6% to 6.1% of the data for each of the PCEs. In calculating Pearson correlations and performing hierarchical logistic analysis, we included 2462 participants who responded to both ACEs and PCEs.
RESULTS
Descriptive statistics
The Cronbach's α for K6 was 0.918. The K6 scores ranged from 0 to 24 points, with a mean (SD) of 5.56 (5.81). Among the participants, the level of depressive/anxiety symptoms was 23.1% mild, 10.3% moderate, and 13.4% severe. The IES‐R‐J scores ranged from 0 to 88 points, with a mean (SD) of 28.6 (20.0). The Cronbach's α for IES‐R‐J was 0.854. In addition, 55.4% of the participants reported severe distress (IES‐R‐J ≥ 25). TIL scores ranged from 3 to 12 points, with a mean (SD) of 7.14 (2.53). The Cronbach's α for TIL was 0.880. SOC‐3‐UTHS scores ranged from 3 to 21 points, with a mean (SD) of 13.28 (3.78). The Cronbach's α for SOC‐3‐UTHS was 0.846.
The ACE and PCE scores and item counts are displayed in Tables 3, 4, 5. The Cronbach's α for ACEs and PCEs were 0.801 and 0.897, respectively.
Table 3.
Number of ACEs and PCEs applicable.
| ACEs | PCEs | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| N | % | N | % | |
| 0 | 2053 | 68.4 | 201 | 6.7 |
| 1 | 328 | 10.9 | 47 | 1.6 |
| 2 | 127 | 4.2 | 45 | 1.5 |
| 3 | 83 | 2.8 | 80 | 2.7 |
| 4 | 40 | 1.3 | 99 | 3.3 |
| 5 | 35 | 1.2 | 143 | 4.8 |
| 6 | 18 | 0.6 | 171 | 5.7 |
| 7 | 11 | 0.4 | 218 | 7.3 |
| 8 | 3 | 0.1 | 273 | 9.1 |
| 9 | 2 | 0.1 | 423 | 14.1 |
| 10 | 13 | 0.4 | 875 | 29.2 |
| NA | 287 | 9.6 | 425 | 14.2 |
Abbreviations: ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; NA, no answer; PCEs, positive childhood experiences.
Table 4.
Frequencies of ACEs.
| ACEs | Yes (%) | No (%) | NA (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Physical abuse | 6.1 | 90.8 | 3.1 |
| 2. Psychological abuse | 8.9 | 87.8 | 3.2 |
| 3. Sexual abuse | 4.4 | 92.3 | 3.3 |
| 4. Psychological neglect | 9.1 | 87.9 | 3.0 |
| 5. Family alcohol/drug dependence | 4.1 | 93.9 | 2.0 |
| 6. Domestic violence in front of children | 8.5 | 88.6 | 2.9 |
| 7. Family mental illness and suicide | 6.7 | 91.1 | 2.2 |
| 8. Divorce or separation of parents | 10.8 | 86.8 | 2.4 |
| 9. Abandoned childcare | 3.8 | 93.9 | 2.3 |
| 10. Family imprisonment | 2.1 | 95.7 | 2.2 |
Abbreviations: ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; NA, no answer.
Table 5.
Frequencies of PCEs.
| PCEs | Yes (%) | No (%) | NA (%) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Having at least one safe caregiver | 75.9 | 20.3 | 3.8 |
| 2. Having at least one good friend | 82.3 | 15.0 | 2.7 |
| 3. Having places that gave comfort | 77.9 | 18.9 | 3.3 |
| 4. Enjoying school | 58.8 | 36.9 | 4.3 |
| 5. Having at least one teacher who cared | 70.2 | 26.0 | 3.8 |
| 6. Having good neighbors | 57.5 | 38.8 | 3.7 |
| 7. Having an adult (not a parent/caregiver) who could provide support or advice | 64.6 | 32.0 | 3.4 |
| 8. Having opportunities to have a good time | 82.4 | 14.4 | 3.2 |
| 9. Having a positive self‐concept | 52.8 | 41.1 | 6.1 |
| 10. Having a predictable home routine | 63.4 | 34.1 | 2.6 |
Abbreviations: NA, no answer; PCEs, positive childhood experiences.
Bivariate correlations between the variables are presented in Table 6. High correlations were observed between K6 and IES‐R‐J (r = 0.520, p < 0.01), and K6 and TIL (r = 0.506, p < 0.01). ACEs and PCEs exhibited a slight negative correlation (r = −0.119, p < 0.01). PCEs displayed a modest positive correlation with SOC‐3‐UTHS (r = 0.313, p < 0.01).
Table 6.
Bivariate correlations between variables.
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1. K6 | ー | |||||
| 2. IES‐R‐J | 0.520** | ー | ||||
| 3. TIL | 0.506** | 0.338** | ー | |||
| 4. SOC‐3‐UTHS | −0.060** | −0.004 | −0.042* | ー | ||
| 5. ACEs | 0.219** | 0.181** | 0.106** | −0.051** | ー | |
| 6. PCEs | −0.218** | −0.201** | −0.119** | 0.313** | −0.119** | ー |
Abbreviations: ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; IES‐R‐J, Japanese version of the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised; K6, Kessler Psychological Distress 6‐Item Scale; PCEs, positive childhood experiences; SOC‐3‐UTHS, University of Tokyo Health Sociology version of the three‐item Sense of Coherence Scale; TIL, Japanese version of the three‐item loneliness scale.
*p < 0.05. **p < 0.01.
Hierarchical logistic regression analysis
Table 7 displays the results of the hierarchical binomial logistic analysis. The omnibus tests for each model were significant (p < 0.001).
Table 7.
Hierarchical binomial logistic regression for depressive/anxiety symptoms, distress, fear of COVID‐19, and loneliness.
| Depressive/anxiety symptoms (K6) | Distress (IES‐R‐J) | Fear of COVID‐19 | Loneliness(TIL) | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| p value | OR | 95% CI | p value | OR | 95% CI | p value | OR | 95% CI | p value | OR | 95% CI | |
| Step 1. Covariates | ||||||||||||
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Female | 0.009 | 1.32 | [1.07–1.63] | 0.962 | 1.00 | [0.85–1.17] | <0.001 | 1.53 | [1.29–1.82] | 0.020 | 1.22 | [1.03–1.43] |
| Neither | 0.01 | 4.21 | [1.40–12.62] | 0.106 | 2.64 | [0.81–8.55] | 0.240 | 1.92 | [0.65–5.68] | 0.867 | 0.91 | [0.32–2.63] |
| No answer | 0.504 | 1.59 | [0.41–6.13] | 0.181 | 2.28 | [0.68–7.65] | 0.182 | 2.12 | [0.70–6.38] | 0.461 | 1.53 | [0.49–4.75] |
| Age | 0.143 | 0.95 | [0.88–1.02] | 0.013 | 0.93 | [0.88–0.99] | 0.381 | 0.97 | [0.92–1.03] | 0.046 | 0.94 | [0.89–1.00] |
| Current psychiatric treatment | ||||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Yes | <0.001 | 4.57 | [3.06–6.84] | <0.001 | 3.23 | [2.04–5.12] | 0.018 | 1.62 | [1.09–2.41] | <0.001 | 3.01 | [1.86–4.86] |
| Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself | ||||||||||||
| Disagree | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Undecided | <0.001 | 2.99 | [2.33–3.84] | <0.001 | 2.34 | [1.90–2.90] | <0.001 | 1.56 | [1.25–1.94] | <0.001 | 1.56 | [1.27–1.93] |
| Agree | <0.001 | 3.86 | [3.00–4.97] | <0.001 | 2.56 | [2.05–3.19] | <0.001 | 3.72 | [2.98–4.65] | <0.001 | 2.80 | [2.22–3.54] |
| SOC‐3‐UTHS | <0.001 | 0.95 | [0.92–0.98] | 0.141 | 0.98 | [0.96–1.01] | <0.01 | 1.09 | [1.07–1.12] | 0.773 | 1.00 | [0.98–1.02] |
| Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.09/0.15 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.06/0.08 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.09/0.13 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.05/0.07 | |||||||||
| Step 2 ACEs | ||||||||||||
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Female | 0.006 | 1.34 | [1.09–1.66] | 0.971 | 1.00 | [0.85–1.18] | <0.001 | 1.53 | [1.29–1.83] | 0.019 | 1.22 | [1.03–1.44] |
| Neither | 0.011 | 4.22 | [1.39–12.80] | 0.113 | 2.61 | [0.80–8.52] | 0.232 | 1.94 | [0.66–5.73] | 0.857 | 0.91 | [0.32–2.62] |
| No answer | 0.468 | 1.65 | [0.43–6.33] | 0.181 | 2.28 | [0.68–7.64] | 0.183 | 2.12 | [0.70–6.38] | 0.459 | 1.53 | [0.49–4.76] |
| Age | 0.139 | 0.95 | [0.88–1.02] | 0.011 | 0.93 | [0.88–0.98] | 0.396 | 0.98 | [0.92–1.03] | 0.044 | 0.94 | [0.89–1.00] |
| Current psychiatric treatment | ||||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Yes | <0.001 | 3.94 | [2.60–5.97] | <0.001 | 2.88 | [1.81–4.59] | 0.009 | 1.71 | [1.14–2.56] | <0.001 | 2.90 | [1.77–4.65] |
| Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself | ||||||||||||
| Disagree | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Undecided | <0.001 | 3.08 | [2.39–3.97] | <0.001 | 2.38 | [1.92–2.95] | <0.001 | 1.56 | [1.25–1.94] | <0.001 | 1.57 | [1.27–1.93] |
| Agree | <0.001 | 3.62 | [2.81–4.67] | <0.001 | 2.43 | [1.94–3.04] | <0.001 | 3.81 | [3.04–4.77] | <0.001 | 2.75 | [2.17–3.48] |
| SOC‐3‐UTHS | 0.001 | 0.96 | [0.93–0.98] | 0.221 | 0.99 | [0.97–1.01] | <.001 | 1.09 | [1.07–1.12] | 0.855 | 1.00 | [0.98–1.02] |
| ACEs | <0.001 | 1.25 | [1.16–1.33] | <0.001 | 1.20 | [1.12–1.29] | 0.106 | 0.95 | [0.88–1.01] | 0.060 | 1.07 | [1.00–1.14] |
| Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.11/0.17 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.07/0.10 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.09/0.13 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.05/0.07 | |||||||||
| Step 3 ACE ＋ PCEs | ||||||||||||
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Female | 0.005 | 1.36 | [1.10–1.69] | 0.924 | 0.99 | [0.84–1.17] | <0.001 | 1.54 | [1.30–1.84] | 0.020 | 1.22 | [1.03–1.44] |
| Neither | 0.021 | 3.71 | [1.22–11.28] | 0.185 | 2.24 | [0.68–7.35] | 0.185 | 2.11 | [0.70–6.34] | 0.809 | 0.88 | [0.31–2.53] |
| No answer | 0,292 | 2.06 | [0.54–7.87] | 0.128 | 2.55 | [0.76–8.54] | 0.223 | 1.99 | [0.66–6.02] | 0.433 | 1.57 | [0.51–4.87] |
| Age | 0.054 | 0.93 | [0.87–1.00] | 0.002 | 0.92 | [0.86–0.97] | 0.521 | 0.98 | [0.92–1.04] | 0.034 | 0.94 | [0.89–1.00] |
| Current psychiatric treatment | ||||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Yes | <0.001 | 3.91 | [2.57–5.95] | <0.001 | 2.81 | [1.76–4.50] | 0.007 | 1.75 | [1.17–2.62] | <0.001 | 2.85 | [1.75–4.62] |
| Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself | ||||||||||||
| Disagree | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Undecided | <0.001 | 2.81 | [2.17–3.64] | <0.001 | 2.23 | [1.80–2.78] | <0.001 | 1.64 | [1.31–2.04] | <0.001 | 1.54 | [1.25–1.90] |
| Agree | <0.001 | 3.43 | [2.65–4.44] | <0.001 | 2.31 | [1.85–2.90] | <0.001 | 3.99 | [3.18–5.01] | <0.001 | 2.71 | [2.14–3.43] |
| SOC‐3‐UTHS | 0.485 | 0.99 | [0.96–1.02] | 0.178 | 1.02 | [0.99–1.04] | <0.001 | 1.08 | [1.05–1.11] | 0.720 | 1.00 | [0.98–1.03] |
| ACEs | <0.001 | 1.22 | [1.14–1.31] | <0.001 | 1.17 | [1.09–1.25] | 0.261 | 0.96 | [0.90–1.03] | 0.085 | 1.06 | [0.99–1.13] |
| PCE | <0.001 | 0.87 | [0.84–0.90] | <0.001 | 0.89 | [0.87–0.92] | <0.001 | 1.07 | [1.03–1.10] | 0.092 | 0.98 | [0.95–1.00] |
| Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.13/0.20 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.10/0.13 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.10/0.14 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.05/0.07 | |||||||||
| Step 4 PCEs | ||||||||||||
| Gender | ||||||||||||
| Male | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Female | 0.006 | 1.34 | [1.09–1.66] | 0.897 | 0.99 | [0.84–1.17] | <0.001 | 1.54 | [1.30–1.84] | 0.020 | 1.22 | [1.03–1.43] |
| Neither | 0.021 | 3.68 | [1.22–11.16] | 0.181 | 2.25 | [0.69–7.36] | 0.188 | 2.1 | [0.70–6.33] | 0.813 | 0.88 | [0.31–2.53] |
| No answer | 0.304 | 2.02 | [0.53–7.76] | 0.127 | 2.56 | [0.77–8.53] | 0.223 | 1.99 | [0.70–6.00] | 0.432 | 1.57 | [0.51–4.88] |
| Age | 0.054 | 0.932 | [0.87–1.00] | 0.003 | 0.92 | [0.87–0.97] | 0.515 | 0.98 | [0.92–1.04] | 0.035 | 0.941 | [0.89–1.00] |
| Current psychiatric treatment | ||||||||||||
| No | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Yes | <0.001 | 4.45 | [2.98–6.74] | <0.001 | 3.09 | [1.94–4.92] | 0.011 | 1.69 | [1.13–2.52] | <0.001 | 2.97 | [1.83–4.80] |
| Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself | ||||||||||||
| Disagree | Reference | Reference | Reference | Reference | ||||||||
| Undecided | <0.001 | 2.74 | [2.22–3.53] | <0.001 | 2.19 | [1.77–2.73] | <0.001 | 1.64 | [1.32–2.05] | <0.001 | 1.53 | [1.24–1.90] |
| Agree | <0.001 | 3.64 | [2.82–4.69] | <0.001 | 2.40 | [1.92–3.01] | <0.001 | 3.93 | [3.14–4.93] | <0.001 | 2.76 | [2.18–3.45] |
| SOC‐3‐UTHS | 0.39 | 0.99 | [0.96–1.02] | 0.212 | 1.02 | [0.99–1.04] | <0.001 | 1.08 | [1.05–1.11] | 0.751 | 1 | [0.98–1.03] |
| PCEs | <0.001 | 0.87 | [0.84–0.90] | <0.001 | 0.89 | [0.86–0.91] | <0.001 | 1.07 | [1.04–1.10] | 0.063 | 0.97 | [0.95–1.00] |
| Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.12/0.19 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.09/0.12 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.10/0.13 | Cox–Snell R 2/Nagelkerke R 2 = 0.05/0.07 | |||||||||
Abbreviations: ACEs, adverse childhood experiences; IES‐R‐J, Japanese version of the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised; K6, Kessler Psychological Distress 6‐Item Scale; PCEs, positive childhood experiences; SOC‐3‐UTHS, University of Tokyo Health Sociology version of the three‐item Sense of Coherence Scale; TIL, Japanese version of the three‐item loneliness scale.
Depressive/anxiety symptoms
In Step 1, sex, current psychiatric treatment, “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself,” and SOC‐3‐UTHS were significantly associated with depressive/anxiety symptoms. In Step 2, along with these covariates, the ACEs scores also showed significance with an odds ratio (OR) of 1.25 (95% confidence interval [CI] [1.16–1.33]). The addition of PCEs, alongside the previous independent variables in Step 3, revealed significant differences (OR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.84–0.90] for PCEs). Adding PCEs with covariates in Step 4 also revealed a significant difference (OR = 0.87, 95% CI [0.84–0.90]). Using Step 3 as a model, the predictors of worse depressive/anxiety symptoms were as follows: female or neither versus male (OR = 1.31, 95% CI [1.10–1.69], OR = 3.71, 95% CI [1.22–11.28], respectively). Agree and undecided responses to “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself” and receiving psychiatric treatment had stronger impacts on depressive/anxiety symptoms. Higher ACEs scores were associated with greater depressive/anxiety symptoms, whereas higher PCEs scores were associated with the opposite trend.
Distress
In Step 1, age, current psychiatric treatment, and “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself” were significantly associated with severe distress. In Step 2, along with these covariates, the ACEs scores also demonstrated significance with an OR of 1.20 (95% CI [1.12–1.29]). When PCEs were added in Step 3, they showed a significant relationship (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.87–0.92]). The addition of PCEs with covariates in Step 4 also revealed a significant difference (OR = 0.89, 95% CI [0.86–0.91]). Using Step 3 as a model, the predictors of worsening distress were younger age, receiving psychiatric treatment, and an agree or undecided response to “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself.” Higher ACEs scores were associated with greater distress, whereas higher PCEs scores were associated with decreased distress.
Fear of COVID‐19
In Step 1, sex, current psychiatric treatment, “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself,” and SOC‐3‐UTHS were significantly related to fear of COVID‐19. When ACEs were added in Step 2, they did not demonstrate a significant relationship with fear of COVID‐19 (OR = 0.95, 95% CI [0.88–1.01]). In Step 3, when PCEs were added, PCEs showed a significant relationship with fear of COVID‐19 (OR = 1.07, 95% CI [1.03–1.10]). The addition of PCEs with covariates in Step 4 also revealed a significant difference (OR = 1.07, 95% CI [1.04–1.10]).
Using Step 3 as the model, the predictors of exacerbating fear of COVID‐19 were female sex, receiving psychiatric treatment, an agree or undecided response to “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself,” higher SOC‐3‐UTHS score, and higher PCEs score.
Loneliness
In Step 1, sex, age, current psychiatric treatment, and “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself” were significantly associated with loneliness. In Step 2, when ACEs were added, the covariates that were significantly related to loneliness in Step 1 remained significant; however, the relationship between ACEs and loneliness was not significant (OR = 1.07, 95% CI [1.00–1.09]).
When PCEs were added in Step 3, the covariates with a significant relationship with loneliness in Step 2 remained significant. PCEs did not show a significant relationship with loneliness (OR = 0.98, 95% CI [0.95–1.00]). The addition of PCEs with covariates in Step 4 revealed no significant difference (OR = 0.97, 95% CI [0.95–1.00]).
Using Step 3 as the model, females were more likely to experience loneliness than males (OR = 1.22, 95% CI [1.03–1.44]). Greater loneliness was also associated with receiving current psychiatric treatment and an agree or undecided response to “Living in insecurity due to reduced income of my guardian or myself.”
DISCUSSION
In this study, 46.9% of the participants reported K6 scores ≥5, indicating depressive/anxiety symptoms, while 13.4% reported scores ≥13, suggesting severe depressive/anxiety symptoms. An online survey assessing 11,333 members of the general Japanese population (mean age [SD] = 46.3 [14.6]) after the first state of emergency found that 48.1% had K6 scores ≥5, with 11.5% having scores ≥13, indicating a higher prevalence of severe symptoms among younger individuals. 23 In the 2019 Comprehensive Survey of Living Conditions, 24 approximately 30% of respondents over the age of 20 years had a K6 score ≥5, suggesting that the mental health impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic extends beyond students to the entire nation.
Ochnik et al. 2 conducted a study using a PTSD checklist specific version among students across several European countries during the second wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic (mid‐October to December 2020) and found that 78.2% of respondents exhibited suspected PTSD with the pandemic as a stressor. In studies not limited to specific stressors, 42.9% of students in France were symptom‐positive according to the IES‐R conducted shortly after the peak mortality rate in France in April 2020. 25 Similarly, in a study conducted in Spain over an 8‐day period starting on March 28, 2020, 50.4% of students were symptom‐positive according to the original IES. 26 In our study, using the IES‐R‐J in students without limiting stressors, 55.4% were found to be at risk of severe distress, underscoring the significant impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on students' mental health.
Both PCEs and ACEs play crucial roles in shaping individuals' development throughout their lives. 14 , 15 , 16 , 27 , 28 , 29 In our study, we chose to focus on PCEs and their relationship with students' mental health outcomes. Our hierarchical logistic analysis revealed that higher scores on ACEs were associated with increased depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress. Conversely, higher scores on PCEs were associated with decreased depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress, although they were linked to an increased fear of COVID‐19. Experiencing fear during a pandemic can be viewed as a natural response aimed at taking appropriate measures to safeguard against infection. Therefore, PCEs may contribute to fostering a sense of resilience and adaptive crisis awareness during emergencies like the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Regarding our hypotheses, we confirmed that PCEs indeed mitigated the effects of ACEs on depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress. However, we found that ACEs did not influence the fear of COVID‐19, while PCEs had an exacerbating effect on this fear. Additionally, neither ACEs nor PCEs showed any effect on loneliness in our study. Interestingly, while our study did not observe a direct effect of ACEs and PCEs on loneliness, previous research has demonstrated that ACEs heightened students' loneliness while PCEs reduced it. 30
The relationships among ACEs, PCEs, and loneliness remain relatively unexplored in the literature, indicating a potential avenue for future research. In a systematic review of 58 studies on the impact of PCEs on adult outcomes, Han et al. 29 concluded that PCEs independently predict more favorable outcomes without interacting with or moderating ACEs. Moreover, PCEs are deemed crucial targets for fostering resilience in adults, particularly among those who have experienced significant childhood adversity. Noda et al. 4 reported that a higher SOC, indicative of resilience, correlates with reduced depressive/anxiety symptoms. However, our current study did not find a significant effect of SOC on depressive/anxiety symptoms when PCEs were included in the model. Interestingly, while Step 1 and Step 2 of our analysis did not reveal a significant relationship between SOC and distress, the inclusion of PCEs led to a reduction in distress. Previous studies 31 have indicated that a strong SOC reduces PTSD symptoms, but our findings are not consistent with these findings. The correlation coefficients between depressive/anxiety symptoms or distress and SOC were low, indicating that as the COVID‐19 pandemic progresses, the influence of SOC may diminish, while the impact of ACEs and PCEs, which have a more substantial effect, may become more prominent.
A trend was observed indicating that neither males nor females exhibited depressive/anxiety symptoms of moderate or greater levels, highlighting the importance of focusing on the mental health of individuals with gender dysphoria.
LIMITATIONS
There are several limitations to consider in this survey. First, the online nature of the survey may have introduced bias towards participants with computer skills. Second, the use of screening tools rather than face‐to‐face diagnosis may have led to an overestimation of the frequency of depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress. Additionally, since the questionnaires were self‐administered, variations in respondents' language abilities and comprehension of the questionnaire could have influenced the results. Furthermore, there may have been a tendency towards central responses due to limited alternative options in the survey questions. Despite these limitations, the findings of this study contribute valuable insights into the mental health of students during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
CONCLUSION
Roughly 47% of students displayed depressive/anxiety symptoms, while approximately 55% exhibited severe distress, which may include PTSD symptoms. Current psychiatric treatment history, experiencing reduced income (either parental or personal), and suspicion of gaming disorder were identified as predictors of exacerbated depressive/anxiety symptoms, distress, and loneliness. Paying attention to these factors is crucial to prevent the deterioration of students' mental health during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Further, PCEs emerged as predictors of reduced depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress. While ACEs are typically associated with mental health risks, such as depressive/anxiety symptoms and distress, this study revealed that PCEs can independently prevent mental health decline, even in the presence of ACEs. PCEs encompass positive childhood experiences at home, in the community, and at school, emphasizing the importance of nurturing environments in fostering good mental health, even amid global crises like the COVID‐19 pandemic. Recognizing and promoting PCEs were found to be effective strategies in mitigating mental health challenges.
AUTHOR CONTRIBUTION
Tetsuro Noda: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; project administration; writing—original draft; writing—review and editing. Hiromu Nagaura: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis; writing—review and editing. Yoshinobu Fujita: Conceptualization; data curation; formal analysis. Toshihiko Tsutsumi: Writing—reviewing and editing. All authors read and approved the final draft.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST STATEMENT
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
ETHICS APPROVAL STATEMENT
The ethics committee of Osaka University of Human Science approved this study (No. 2022‐5).
PATIENT CONSENT STATEMENT
All the participants were informed of the purpose of the study. It was explained that participation was anonymous and voluntary and informed written consent was provided by all participants.
CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
N/A
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We would like to thank Editage (www.editage.com) for English‐language editing. This study was supported by the JSPS KAKENHI (grant number GA03065).
Noda T, Nagaura H, Fujita Y, Tsutsumi T. Cross‐sectional study on university students' mental health during the COVID‐19 pandemic: exploring the influence of adverse and positive childhood experiences. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci Rep. 2024;3:e235. 10.1002/pcn5.235
DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
Data are available upon reasonable request.
REFERENCES
- 1. Cénat JM, Blais‐Rochette C, Kokou‐Kpolou CK, Noorishad PG, Mukunzi JN, McIntee SE, et al. Prevalence of symptoms of depression, anxiety, insomnia, posttraumatic stress disorder, and psychological distress among populations affected by the COVID‐19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta‐analysis. Psychiatry Res. 2021. Jan;295:113599. 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113599 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 2. Ochnik D, Rogowska AM, Kuśnierz C, Jakubiak M, Schütz A, Held MJ, et al. Mental health prevalence and predictors among university students in nine countries during the COVID19 pandemic: a cross‐national study. Sci Rep. 2021;11:18644. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3. Tanaka T, Okamoto S. Increase in suicide following an initial decline during the COVID‐19 pandemic in Japan. Nat Hum Behav. 2021. Feb;5(2):229–238. 10.1038/s41562-020-01042-z [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4. Noda T, Nagaura H, Tsutsumi T, Fujita Y, Asao Y, Matsuda A, et al. A cross‐sectional study of the psychological impact of the COVID‐19 pandemic on undergraduate and graduate students in Japan. J Affect Disord Rep. 2021;6:100282. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 5. Furukawa TA, Kawakami N, Saitoh M, Ono Y, Nakane Y, Nakamura Y, et al. The performance of the Japanese version of the K6 and K10 in the World Mental Health Survey Japan. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. 2008;17(3):152–158. 10.1002/mpr.257 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM‐5). 5th ed. Arlington, VA: American Psychiatric Publications; 2013. [Google Scholar]
- 7. North CS, Surís AM, Pollio DE. A nosological exploration of PTSD and trauma in disaster mental health and implications for the COVID‐19 pandemic. Behav Sci. 2021;11:7. 10.3390/bs11010007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8. Shevlin M, Hyland P, Karatzias T. Is posttraumatic stress disorder meaningful in the context of the COVID‐19 pandemic? A response to Van Overmeire's commentary on Karatzias et al. (2020). J Trauma Stress. 2020;33:866–868. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 9. Bridgland VME, Moeck EK, Green DM, Swain TL, Nayda DM, Matson LA, et al. Why the COVID‐19 pandemic is a traumatic stressor. PLoS One. 2021;16(11):e0240146. 10.1371/journal.pone.0240146 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 10. Asukai N, Kato H, Kawamura N, Kim Y, Yamamoto K, Kishimoto J, et al. Reliabiligy and validity of the Japanese‐language version of the Impact of Event Scale‐Revised (IES‐R‐J): four studies of different traumatic events. J Nerv Ment Dis. 2002;190:175–182. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 11. Felitti VJ, Anda RF, Nordenberg D, Williamson DF, Spitz AM, Edwards V, et al. Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults. Am J Prev Med. 1998;14:245–258. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 12. Karatekin C, Ahluwalia R. Effects of adverse childhood experiences, stress, and social support on the health of college students. J Interpers Violence. 2020;35(1–2):150–172. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 13. Li X, Lv Q, Tang W, Deng W, Zhao L, Meng Y, et al. Psychological stresses among Chinese university students during the COVID‐19 epidemic: the effect of early life adversity on emotional distress. J Affect Disord. 2021;282:33–38. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14. Narayan AJ, Rivera LM, Bernstein RE, Harris WW, Lieberman AF. Positive childhood experiences predict less psychopathology and stress in pregnant women with childhood adversity: a pilot study of the benevolent childhood experiences (BCEs) scale. Child Abuse Negl. 2018;78:19–30. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15. Crandall A, Miller JR, Cheung A, Novilla LK, Glade R, Novilla MLB, et al. ACEs and counter‐ACEs: how positive and negative childhood experiences influence adult health. Child Abuse Negl. 2019;96:104089. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2019.104089 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 16. Doom JR, Seok D, Narayan AJ, Fox KR. Adverse and benevolent childhood experiences predict mental health during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Advers Resil Sci. 2021;2:193–204. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 17. American Psychiatric Association . Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM‐Ⅳ). 4th ed. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing; 1994. [Google Scholar]
- 18. Igarashi T. Development of the Japanese version of the Three‐item Loneliness Scale. BMC Psychol. 2019;7:20. 10.1186/s40359-019-0285-0 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 19. Togari T, Yamazaki Y, Nakayama K, Shimizu J. Development of a short version of the sense of coherence scale for population survey. J Epidemiol Commun Health. 2007;61(10):921–922. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 20. Antonovsky A. Unravelling the mystery of health: how people manage stress and stay well. San Francisco: Jossey‐Bass Publishers; 1987. [Google Scholar]
- 21. Fujiwara T. Impact of adverse childhood experience on physical and mental health: a life‐course epidemiology perspective. Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2022. Nov;76(11):544–551. 10.1111/pcn.13464 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22. Anda RF, Whitfield CL, Felitti VJ, Chapman D, Edwards VJ, Dube SR, et al. Adverse childhood experiences, alcoholic parents, and later risk of alcoholism and depression. Psychiatr Serv. 2002. Aug;53(8):1001–1009. 10.1176/appi.ps.53.8.1001 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 23. Yamamoto T, Uchiumi C, Suzuki N, Yoshimoto J, Murillo‐Rodriguez E. The psychological impact of “mild lockdown” in Japan during the COVID‐19 pandemic: a nationwide survey under a declared state of emergency. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020;17:9382. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 24. Ministry of Health , Labour and welfare: comprehensive survey of living conditions. 2019. [cited 2024 Aug 10]. Available from: https://www.mhlw.go.jp/english/database/db-hss/dl/report_gaikyo_2019.pdf
- 25. Essadek A, Rabeyron T. Mental health of French students during the Covid‐19 pandemic. J Affect Disord. 2020;277:392–393. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 26. Odriozola‐González P, Planchuelo‐Gómez Á, Irurtia MJ, De luis‐García R. Psychological effects of the COVID‐19 outbreak and lockdown among students and workers of a Spanish university. Psychiatry Res. 2020;290:113108. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 27. Bethell C, Jones J, Gombojav N, Linkenbach J, Sege R. Positive childhood experiences and adult mental and relational health in a statewide sample: associations across adverse childhood experiences levels. JAMA Pediatrics. 2019;173(11):e193007. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2019.3007 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 28. Crandall A, Broadbent E, Stanfill M, Magnusson BM, Novilla MLB, Hanson CL, et al. The influence of adverse and advantageous childhood experiences during adolescence on young adult health. Child Abuse Negl. 2020;108:104644. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2020.104644 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 29. Han D, Dieujuste N, Doom JR, Narayan AJ. A systematic review of positive childhood experiences and adult outcomes: promotive and protective processes for resilience in the context of childhood adversity. Child Abuse Negl. 2023;144:106346. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2023.106346 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 30. Xu Z, Zhang D, Ding H, Zheng X, Lee RCM, Yang Z, et al. Association of positive and adverse childhood experiences with risky behaviours and mental health indicators among Chinese university students in Hong Kong: an exploratory study. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2022. May 25;13(1):2065429. 10.1080/20008198.2022.2065429 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 31. Schäfer SK, Becker N, King L, Horsch A, Michael T. The relationship between sense of coherence and post‐traumatic stress: a meta‐analysis. Eur J Psychotraumatol. 2019;10(1):1562839. 10.1080/20008198.2018.1562839 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Associated Data
This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.
Data Availability Statement
Data are available upon reasonable request.