Skip to main content
PLOS ONE logoLink to PLOS ONE
. 2021 Feb 10;16(2):e0246676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246676

College students’ stress and health in the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion

Chunjiang Yang 1,*, Aobo Chen 1, Yashuo Chen 1
Editor: Chung-Ying Lin2
PMCID: PMC7875391  PMID: 33566824

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic has unhinged the lives of people across the globe. In particular, more than 30 million Chinese college students are home-schooling, yet there is little understanding of how academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion lead to a decrease in their health. This study examined the relationships between Chinese college students’ three critical stressors and two types of health in the COVID‐19 pandemic context. We used a three-wave lagged design with a one-week interval. All the constructs were assessed by self-report in anonymous surveys during the COVID‐19 pandemic. College students were asked to report their demographic information, academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, perceived stress, and health. The results of this study showed that academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion had negative effects on college students’ health via perceived stress. In the COVID-19 crisis, multiple prevention and control measures focusing on college students may lead them to have different degrees of stress and health problems. Our results enrich the literature on stress and health and offer novel practical implications for all circles of the society to ensure students’ health under the context of the COVID-19 epidemic.

Introduction

Compared with other student groups, such as primary school students and middle school students, the traditional view is that college students bear more pressure and have more serious physical and mental health problems [1]. In previous research, there is a strongly held consensus that dealing with intimate relationships, financial difficulties, and fulfilling responsibilities and roles are the main sources of stress for college students. Due to the recent social changes in the education domain (e.g., the sharing of educational resources and advances in communication technology), the use of distance education is more and more, which changes the communication patterns between teachers and students, increases the isolation and independence of students, and thus becomes an important source of pressure for students [2]. Today, the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is becoming unstoppable, having infected more than 12 million people [3]. In response to this unprecedented challenge, the Chinese government has ordered a nationwide school closure as an emergency measure to prevent the spreading of the infection among teachers and students. As a consequence, 30.315 million Chinese college students are trapped at home, learning online courses through the internet to complete the required academic tasks. So far, the new virtual semester has been going on for nearly three months, and various courses are offered online in a well-organized manner. Although these decisive actions and efforts are highly commendable and necessary, there are also reasons to worry that drawn-out school suspension, home confinement, and distance learning may have adverse effects on college students’ physical and mental health [4]. In addition, a series of issues, such as fear of contagion, frustration and boredom, inadequate information, and lack of private space at home, would continue to emerge and increase during the COVID-19 outbreak [4]. However, previous research failed to give enough attention to college students in the epidemic context. For example, some studies have shown that large-scale isolation measures and loss of income have led to mental health problems among migrant workers during COVID-19 outbreaks [5]. Chen et al. [6] have discussed the problems in psychological intervention services of medical workers. The present study aimed to fill the void by focusing on college students to explore the influence of several important stressors on their health during the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, we identified three important stressors among college students—academic workload, separation from school, and fear of contagion and further explored the mechanism behind the relationships between three stressors and mental and physical health.

Academic stressors refer to any academic demands (e.g., environmental, social, or internal demands) that cause a student to adjust his or her behavior. Learning and examination, performance competition, especially mastering much knowledge in a short time, would lead to different degrees of academic pressure [7]. Although all planned courses have been affected by the COVID-19 epidemic, online learning still leaves college students with the same academic burden as usual. In addition, previous evidence shows that separation anxiety disorder of adults is similar to that of children and adolescents in phenomenology. College students who are attached to their classmates may experience separation anxiety after leaving school. Emerging problems during the COVID-19 outbreak, such as conflicting family schedules, changes in eating and sleeping habits, separation from classmates, and loneliness, may have adverse effects on college students [8]. Seligman and Wuyek suggested that college students may experience separation anxiety when they go home for the holidays [9]. Finally, the COVID-19 pandemic has projected humanity into an unprecedented era characterized by feelings of helplessness and loss of control. As Sontag [10] noted, unknown diseases cannot be totally controlled and thus are often considered more threatening than factual evidence. During this period, populations remained almost entirely susceptible to COVID-19, causing the natural spread of infections to exhibit almost perfect exponential growth [11]. Therefore, feelings of fear and apprehension about having or contracting COVID-19 may be a significant stressor for college students. Considering the actual situation of college students during an outbreak of COVID-19, the first aim of the study is to identify academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion, which are the three important stressors of college students.

Moreover, previous studies demonstrated that diseases (e.g., SARS) [12], academic (e.g., academic expectations) [13], and attachments (e.g., attachment to parents) [14] are closely associated with students’ health. However, it is still not fully understood how these stressors lead to health-related outcomes. In particular, we know little about the mechanism through which these stressors affect physical and mental health in the context of the COVID-19 outbreak. Brewster et al. [15] have suggested that further research is needed to establish the different mechanisms through which stressors impact health in order to have a profound understanding of the nature of stress. In response to these calls for further research, the second aim of this study thus was to examine the potential mediating roles of perceived stress in the relationships between the three stressors and physical and psychological health.

Overall, the current study focuses on college students and presents an integrated framework to investigate whether and how three types of stressors influence physical and mental health. Our study contributes to the current literature on stress and health in three unique ways. First, to the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to explore home-schooling college students’ physical and mental health during the COVID-19 outbreak. It makes up for the lack of understanding of the situations of college students who are ongoing home-schooling during the COVID-19 outbreak. Second, we discovered that academic stressors, interpersonal stressors, and environmental stressors of college students are critical factors that influence their health. This investigation not only overcomes the previous analysis focusing primarily on the effect of a single stressor on college students’ health but also enlarges the scope of current research on students’ stress and health by shifting the locus of theorizing away from campus domain to family domain. Third, by examining the mediating role of perceived stress, we exposed the “black box” in the relationship between stressors and health.

Three stressors among college students during the COVID-19 outbreak

College students’ stressors have been typically grouped into three major categories: academic pressure [1619], social and interpersonal pressure [20, 21], and environmental pressure [22, 23]. Specifically, this study focuses on academic workload (representing academic pressure), separation from school (representing social and interpersonal pressure), and fear of contagion (representing environment pressure).

Academic workload

Academic problems have been regarded as the most common stressor for college students [24, 25]. For example, in Schafer’s [26] investigation, students reported that the most significant daily hassles were academics-related stressors such as constant study, writing papers, preparing for exams, and boring teachers. The academic pressure easily comes from taking and preparing for exams, grade level competition, and acquiring a large amount of knowledge in a short period of time [7]. Perceived stress is a response to stressors, referring to the state of physical or psychological arousal [27]. College students experience adverse physical and psychological outcomes when they perceive excessive or negative stress. Excessive stress may induce physical impairments, including lack of energy, loss of appetite, headaches, or gastrointestinal problems [28]. Numerous studies have evaluated academic stress associated with various adverse outcomes, such as poor health [29, 30], anxiety [31], depression [32], and poor academic performance [33, 34]. In particular, Hystad et al. [35] found significant associations between academic stress and health, both psychological and physical.

Separation from school

Previous studies have shown that students view the transition from high school to college as a source of some degree of stress and emotional dissonance [36]. College students’ adaptability is closely related to their attachment with different people, such as parents and friends. Indeed, extant research on attachment has four research directions. First, the most systematic studies have focused on adolescents’ psychological separation from parents, suggesting that the healthy development of adolescents depends largely on psychological separation from parents [37]. The second field focuses on the attachment relationship between parents and adolescents, assuming that attachment to parents is a necessary prerequisite for adolescents’ adaptive function [38, 39]. The third research stream emphasized the importance of psychological separation and attachment. According to this point of view, a balanced parent-child relationship between psychological separation and parental attachment is the best choice for students’ development [37, 40]. Finally, a fourth research stream focuses on attachment to a group or group members in a campus environment and suggests that this attachment may influence students’ affective and behavioral outcomes [41]. From the above-mentioned research fields, we can discover that the existing literature mainly focuses on the effects of attachment on college students in their campus life. Of course, it is undeniable that the campus is the primary field for college students, while the family field becomes more important for college students during the weekends, holidays, and internships. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of research on the influence of attachment on college students in their family life. According to the literature on attachment and separation, attachment relationships between college students and their classmates may affect their stress and health when they are at home.

Social cohesion theorists believed group formation was entirely a function of individual relationships among the group members: As individuals were attracted to one another, they were consequently attracted to the group as a whole. Furthermore, group formation can occur independently of interpersonal attraction [42]. Based on the social identity theorists’ research, in minimal groups, people formed group attachment without having any contact or even knowing the other members in their group [41]. Thus, whether or not there is a close relationship with group members, one can feel the attachment to the group to which he belongs. However, some scholars reasoned that students with a stronger and healthier sense of themselves as individuals would be better equipped to handle the demands for independent functioning that accompany the college transition. An investigation among medical students shows that students with greater group cohesion reported less stress [43]. Separation anxiety begins with separation from parents, peers, and other significant persons. The national mandate force college students to separate from school in the COVID-19 pandemic, leading to separate from their peers and thus may cause their stress.

Fears of contagion

Fears of contagion reflect feelings of apprehension about having or contracting COVID-19. The literature on health anxiety [44] suggests that threatening events—such as a global pandemic—trigger high levels of stress. Although previous studies have described the pressures triggered by large-scale events, such as natural disasters [44] and terrorist attacks [45], the outbreak of infectious diseases (the COVID-19 pandemic) worldwide is different from other large-scale events [46]. Update to 1 May 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in 3175207 confirmed cases and 224172 deaths [3]. To prevent the spread of infectious diseases, Chines schools have been closed nationwide, collective activities have been canceled, public transportation has been suspended, and family imprisonment has been strictly enforced in some epidemic areas. The outbreak of COVID-19 has a seriously destructive impact on people’s lives all over the world. The effects of COVID-19 are multifaceted, affecting both physical health (e.g., pneumonia, liver, and renal injury) and psychological well-being (e.g., fear of contracting an infectious disease, avoid exposure to others to reduce the risk of being infected). Although national preventive measures can slow the spread of the epidemic, individuals cannot ensure that they are not infected with the disease. According to Chinese data, a large number of transmissions, both in nosocomial and community settings, occurred through human-to-human contact with individuals showing no or mild symptoms [47]. The COVID-19 pandemic is an immediate threat, it is unclear how long it will persist, and there are a multitude of unanswered questions regarding its impact. Several anecdotal reports by health care professionals note the COVID-19 pandemic triggers individuals’ anxiety and stress, particularly surrounding the uncertainties brought by COVID-19 [48]. Therefore, we suggest that fear of having or contracting COVID-19 may lead to college students’ stress and health problems.

Transactional models of stress and coping

Lazarus and Folkman [49] defined stress as a particular relationship between the person and the environment that is appraised by the person as taxing or exceeding his or her resources and endangering his or her well-being. The Transactional Model of Stress provides a basic framework for explaining the processes of individuals coping with stressful events. A core tenet of this model is that the interaction between the person and the environment creates an individual’s feeling of stress. When faced with a stressor, two appraisals were triggered, an individual evaluates potential threats or harms (primary appraisal), as well as the ability to change the situation and control negative emotional reactions (secondary appraisal). Primary appraisal is an individual’s estimate of the significance of an event as stressful, negative, positive, controllable, challenging, friendly, or irrelevant. The secondary appraisal is a judgment of an individual’s coping resources and choices [50]. The response described in the transaction model starts after the primary and secondary appraisals [49]. There are two kinds of coping efforts strongly related to a person’s cognitive appraisal. One is referred to as problem-focused coping, and the other is referred to as emotion-focused coping. The former coping strategy has been shown to be more commonly used in a person’s causal analysis, suggesting that some measures can be taken to change the negative situation. For example, Folkman and Lazarus [51] show that students will adopt a problem-based coping style before the examination. The latter coping strategy predominates when people assess that they have no options or lack resources to alter the situation, stressors have to be accepted [52]. Students have reported they often use escape/avoidance ways to cope with stressors. The problem-solving efforts try to change the situation actively, while the emotion-centric coping style will only change the individual’s interpretation of the stressors. Based on these arguments, we suggest that college students who feel stressed (e.g., regard their stress as an environmental source or lack of ability to alter) would adopt emotion-focused coping as a means of reappraising an uncontrollable situation. Thus, perceived stress plays a central role in the attribution–secondary appraisal coping relationship.

The present study

Our primary aim in the study was to examine the influence of stressors on college students’ stress and health during the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, we empirically examine the influence of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion on college students’ psychology and physiology health that included perceived stress as a mediator. Based on the literature review, we hypothesized:

  • H1a: Academic workload is positively correlated with perceived stress.

  • H1b: Academic workload is negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

  • H2a: Separation from school is positively correlated with perceived stress.

  • H2b: Separation from school is negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

  • H3a: Fears of contagion are positively correlated with perceived stress.

  • H3b: Fears of contagion are negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

  • H4: Perceived stress is negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

  • H5: Perceived stress mediates the relationship between academic workload and physical and mental health.

  • H6: Perceived stress mediates the relationship between separation from school and physical and mental health.

  • H7: Perceived stress mediates the relationship between fears of contagion and physical and mental health.

The hypothesized model is presented in Fig 1.

Fig 1. Hypothesized model.

Fig 1

Methods

Ethics statement

All participants were treated following the American Psychological Association ethical guidelines, and the study protocol was approved by the Yanshan University Institutional Review Board (Approval no. 20-03-01). Each participant got an introduction and a link to a questionnaire via WeChat, a widely used instant communication tool in China. In the introduction, anonymity, the aim of the survey, and information on whether participants agreed to participate in the survey were all illustrated in detail. We explained that if you want to participate in the survey, please open the questionnaire link and fill in your true feelings. Some college students expressed their intention to participate in written form through WeChat, and other college students directly participated in the survey with tacit approval according to the instructions. Therefore, all participants completed the questionnaire voluntarily. In addition, participants were undergraduate students recruited from four public universities in China. Thus, participants are adults and not minors, and we do not need to obtain consent from parents or guardians.

Procedure and participants

Our work is situated within an environmental context the COVID-19 pandemic. All variables were assessed with participants’ self-reports in three anonymous online surveys. Data were collected in three waves to minimize common method bias [53]. In the first-wave survey (Time 1), participants were asked to report their academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, and necessary demographic information. In Time 1, 1072 completed questionnaires were returned. One week later (Time 2), students evaluated their level of perceived stress. Time 2 questionnaires were distributed to the 1072 students, with 945 completed questionnaires being returned. Finally, one week after the second-wave survey (Time 3), students evaluated their physical and psychological health. At Time 3, 867 complete questionnaires were returned.

The average age of college undergraduates was 20.17 years, with 69 percent female. There are 348 freshmen, accounting for 40.1%; 200 sophomores, accounting for 23.1%; 305 junior students, accounting for 35.2%; 14 senior students, accounting for 1.6%. The average number of online courses is 8.41. Only 29.2% of the students rated the quality of online courses as good or very good. Nearly half of the participants said they wanted or very much wanted the school to start soon (49.2%). Of the 867 college students who had participated, 56.2% of them were concerned or very concerned about the possibility of contracting COVID-19 after the semester began. The demographic profile of the survey participants is presented in Table 1.

Table 1. The demographic profile of the survey participants.

Variables Frequency Percentage
Age
    17–20 534 61.6%
    21–24 328 37.8%
    24–30 5 0.6%
Gender
    Female 598 69.0%
    Male 269 31.0%
Grade
    Freshman year 348 40.1%
    Sophomore year 200 23.1%
    Junior year 305 35.2%
    Senior year 14 1.6%
Number of online courses
    1–5 89 10.3%
    6–10 599 69.1%
    11–15 171 19.8%
    16–20 7 0.8%

Measures

We translated the measures from English to Chinese following the commonly used translation/back-translation procedure. All measures are reported in S1 Appendix. Unless otherwise noted, participants responded to all items on a 7-point scale (from 1 = strongly disagree to 7 = strongly agree).

Academic workload

It was measured using the three-item scale developed by Hystad et al. [35]. Items included: “I am spending a lot of time thinking about how this semester’s grades could negatively affect my educational and career goals,” “I am worrying a great deal about the effect this semester’s grades will have on my future,” and “I find myself very concerned about the grades I am likely to receive this semester.” Cronbach’s alpha in their study was .85, which suggests that this scale has good reliability. In the current study, Cronbach’s α of this variable is .883.

Separation from school

Separation from school was measured using the attachment avoidance scale developed by Smith et al. [54]. The scale has fifteen-item. An example of a reworded scale item is “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on my group.” Factor analytic results in their research suggested that the scale has good reliability. In our current study, we reworded to refer to participants’ classmates rather than their social group. An example of a reworded scale item is “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on my classmates.” Cronbach’s α of this variable is .929.

Fears of contagion

We developed a six-item scale to assess participants’ fears of COVID-19 infection. Six items included “In public, I don’t care about touching the door handle without protection,” “In public, I don’t mind sitting in a chair that has just been sat on,” “In an elevator, I don’t mind pushing a button without protection,” “When I’m in a crowded place, I don’t worry about coronavirus from other people,” “I don’t worry about infection if other people don’t wear masks,” “Wearing a mask would make me feel safe.” In the current study, Cronbach’s α of this variable is .842. The results of confirmatory factor analysis are shown that χ2 = 74.424; df = 8; RMSEA = .098; CFI = .982; TLI = .966; SRMR = .043. Thus, this scale has acceptable reliability and validity.

Perceived stress

The 10-item Perceived Stress Scale [55] was used to measure the student’s stress level in the past month. Participants responded to the items on a 5-point scale (from1 = never to 5 = very often). A sample item is “In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and “stressed”?” In our research, Cronbach’s α of this variable is .792.

Physical and psychological health

The CHQ-12 of the Chinese version was used to measure physical and psychological health. The CHQ-12 has been widely used in Chinese populations. The 12 items included headaches, heart palpitations, chest pain or tightening, trembling or pins and needles, sleeplessness, nervousness, and hopelessness. Participants responded to the items on a 4-point scale (1 = not at all, 4 = more than usual). A higher score represented a more severe psychosocial impairment. In our research, Cronbach’s α of this variable is .895.

Control variables

We controlled students’ age, gender, grade, and the number of online courses in the study.

Analysis strategy

First, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in order to test the discriminant validity of the five prime constructs (academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, perceived stress, and health). CFA, as an empirical research technology, is affiliated with structural equation modeling. Therefore, it is necessary to judge the fitting situation according to the fitting indexes from the structural equation model. Common fitting indexes include chi-square(χ2), degree of freedom (df), CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Specifically, if the ratio of chi square to degree of freedom is less than 5, the model is generally acceptable. When CFI and TLI are higher than 0.9, the model fits well. The smaller the RMSEA and SRMR, the better the result, and in particular, when it is below 0.08, the model is acceptable. Second, we performed Harman’s single-factor test to explore the potential influence of common method variance. No single factor accounting for more than 50% of the variance of all the relevant items indicates that the results are acceptable. Third, we calculated Pearson’s correlation coefficient using SPSS Version 21, which reflects the effect of change in one variable when the other variable changes. Fourth, we tested our hypotheses using a path analysis in Mplus Version 8.3. To examine mediation (Hypothesis 5,6, and 7), we used a bootstrap simulation with 1,000 replications to create our bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around our indirect effects. The bootstrap approach is a more robust strategy than the causal step procedure for small samples for assessing indirect effects and a useful method for avoiding power problems relating to a non-normal sampling of the indirect effect. When the 95% confidence interval of the path coefficient does not contain zero, the mediating effect is significant.

Results

Confirmatory factor analyses

Table 2 presents the CFA results. As shown, the baseline five-factor model fitted the data well (χ2 = 3020.006; df = 965; RMSEA = .050; CFI = .920; TLI = .914; SRMR = .064). Against this baseline five-factor model, we tested four alternative models: model 1 was a four-factor model with academic workload merged with perceived stress to form a single factor (χ2 = 5405.203; df = 969; RMSEA = .073; CFI = .827; TLI = .815; SRMR = .112); model 2 was three-factor model with separation from school merged with academic workload and perceived stress to form a single factor (χ2 = 6756.895; df = 972; RMSEA = .083; CFI = .774; TLI = .760; SRMR = .096); model 3 was a two-factor model, with fears of contagion merged with separation from school, academic workload, and perceived stress to form a single factor (χ2 = 9752.729; df = 974; RMSEA = .102; CFI = .658; TLI = .636; SRMR = .110) and model 4 was a one-factor model with five constructs merged with one factor (χ2 = 13665.328; df = 975; RMSEA = .123; CFI = .505; TLI = .475; SRMR = .143). As Table 2 shows, the fit indexes supported the hypothesized five-factor model, providing evidence of the construct distinctiveness of fears of contagion, separation from school, academic workload, and perceived stress and health.

Table 2. Comparison of measurement models.

Model Factors χ2 df Δχ2 RMSEA CFI TLI SRMR
Baseline model Five factors 3020.006 965 0.050 0.920 0.914 0.064
Model 1 Four factors 5405.203 969 2385.197** 0.073 0.827 0.815 0.112
Model 2 Three factors 6756.895 972 3736.889** 0.083 0.774 0.760 0.096
Model 3 Two factors 9752.729 974 6732.723** 0.102 0.658 0.636 0.110
Model 4 One factor 13665.328 975 10645.322** 0.123 0.505 0.475 0.143

Note: AW = academic workload; SFS = separation from school; FOC = fears of contagion; PS = perceived stress; Two factors = AW+SFS+FOC+PS, Health; Three factors = AW+SFS+PS, FOC, Health; Four factors = AW+PS, SFS, FOC, Health.

Tests for common method variance

Because we collected student’s self-report of fears of contagion, separation from school, academic workload, and perceived stress and health in the study, common method variance (CMV) may present as a problem. Therefore, we measured different constructs at different time points to decrease common method variance as much as possible [56] and showed high respect for the security, anonymity, and privacy of research objects and informants. In addition, the results of Harman’s single-factor test suggest that an exploratory factor analysis of all items explained 68.86% of the total variance, and the largest factor accounted for only 24.73% of the variance.

Descriptive statistics

The bivariate Pearson Correlation produces a sample correlation coefficient, which measures the strength and direction of linear relationships between pairs of continuous variables. Reported in Table 3 are the means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations of variables. Academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, and perceived stress were all negatively correlated with health (r = -.121, p < .01; r = -.289, p < .01; r = -.242, p < 0.01; r = -.225, p < 0.01, respectively). Academic workload, separation from school, and fear of contagion, were all positively correlated with perceived stress (r = .152, p < .01; r = .207, p < .01; r = .133, p < 0.01, respectively). It appears that these findings preliminarily provided support for our hypotheses.

Table 3. Means, standard deviations, and bivariate correlations among studied variables.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6
1. Age 20.170 1.393
2. Number of online courses 8.410 2.804 .368**
3. Academic workload 4.900 1.363 .013 .047
4. Fears of contagion 3.093 1.237 -.040 -.064 .009
5. Separation from school 3.358 1.059 -.040 .053 .014 .171**
6. Perceived stress 3.064 .455 -.013 .014 .152** .133** .207**
7. Health 3.075 .547 -.011 .015 -.121** -.242** -.289** -.225**

Note.

** = p < 0.01

* = p < 0.05.

Hypothesis testing

We performed structural equation modeling (SEM) to test the proposed hypotheses and summarized the standardized values of the path coefficients and their significance levels in Fig 2. The results showed significant positive path coefficients from academic workload to perceived stress (β = .211, SE = .040, p < .01), providing empirical evidence in support of H1a. Furthermore, academic workload was shown to have a negative effect on health (β = -.053, SE = .037, n.s.), not providing empirical support for H1b. We also demonstrated that separation from school had a positive association with perceived stress (β = .324, SE = .043, p < .01) and had a negative association with health (β = -.252, SE = .039, p < .01), providing empirical evidence in support of H2a and H2b. Moreover, our results showed that fears of contagion were significantly related to perceived stress (β = .121, SE = .039, p < 0.01) and were significantly related to health (β = -.088, SE = .035, p < .05), providing empirical evidence in support of H3a and H3b. Perceived stress had a negative effect on health (β = -.240, SE = .050, p < .01), providing empirical evidence in support of H4.

Fig 2. The result of structural equation modeling.

Fig 2

We further examined the mediating role of perceived stress with nonparametric bootstrapping procedures. As shown in Table 4, the influence of academic workload on health was mediated by perceived stress because the indirect influence of academic workload on health registered the value of b at -.051 (SE = .016, p = .001), with the 95% CI [-.081, -.028]. Therefore, H5 was supported. Similarly, the influence of separation from school on health was mediated by perceived stress because the indirect influence of separation from school on health registered the value of b at -.078 (SE = .020, p = .000), with the 95% CI [-.113, -.049]. Therefore, H6 was supported. The influence of fear of contagion on health was mediated by perceived stress because the indirect influence of fear of contagion on health registered the value of b at -.029 (SE = .012, p = .014), with the 95% CI [-.053, -.013]. Therefore, H7 was supported.

Table 4. Results of structural equation modeling on the mediating effect of positive emotions.

Indirect paths Effects SE p Lower 5% Upper 5% Results
AW→Perceived stress→ Health -0.051 0.016 0.001 -0.081 -0.028 Supported
SFS→Perceived stress→ Health -0.078 0.020 0.000 -0.113 -0.049 Supported
FOC→Perceived stress→Health -0.029 0.012 0.014 -0.053 -0.013 Supported

Note: AW = academic workload; SFS = separation from school; FOC = fears of contagion; We report the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) calculated using 1,000 bootstrap samples, with lower and upper limits in brackets.

Discussion

The spread of COVID-19 is becoming unstoppable and has already influenced people and countries all over the world. Holmes et al. [57] called for that multidisciplinary science research must be central to the international response to the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence-based guidance on responding to promoting people’s health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. To answer this call, we focus on college students getting home-schooling to explore their stress and health problems. Although the COVID-19 is still spreading rapidly and widely worldwide, it has been effectively controlled in China. What has happened in China shows that quarantine, social distancing, and isolation of infected populations can contain the epidemic. Whereas individual coping strategies are possible (e.g., social distancing), the spread of the virus at a state level is still beyond any given individual’s control. The continuous spread of the epidemic, strict isolation measures, and delays in starting schools, colleges, and universities across the country are expected to influence college students. Considering stress and anxiety associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic for college students [49], it is urgent for the society and management departments to understand the actual situation of college students timely and accurately. Based on the Transactional Model of Stress and coping [49], this study explored the influence of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion on college students’ physical and physiological health, as well as the mediating effect of perceived stress in those relationships.

The current study contributes to the existing literature. First, the present study goes beyond previous literature on college students’ health during the epidemic by integrating three types of stressors from different fields in the proposed model. As highlighted in previous research on college students’ academic stress, preparing exams, courses, and papers should exhibit a negative effect on individual health. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese college students’ learning was not suspended, but they attend the various courses offered online follow the regular schedule. While those measures of the virtual semester ensure regular study, they also cause stress on students. In addition, given the importance of social groups to an individual’s identity and self-worth, we found that college students were separated from their classmates during the COVID-19 epidemic, which brought them stress and anxiety. Previous evidence suggests that college students usually keep attachment relationships with their social group [12, 58]. Attachment figures are usually parents, but may also be siblings, grandparents, or group. Unlike most previous studies that focused on separation from parents [9], this study focused on the influence of departure from school and schoolmates, which is particularly relevant to the epidemic situation. For college students attached to their school or classmates, school-closure is a kind of separation experience, which may be different from their experience when they leave home. Considering the relatively new separation (separation from school) caused by the outbreak of COVID-19, our findings suggest that separation from school was positively related to college students’ perceived stress during home-schooling. Finally, we found that exposure to a potentially infectious environment would lead to people’s stress, which is in line with previous research that pointed out the negative correlation between the risk of infection and life satisfaction [58]. Similar results have been found in the study of College Students’ psychological adjustment during SARS. For example, Main et al. [12] found that the experience of SARS-related stressors was positively associated with psychological symptoms for Chinese college students during the outbreak. Thus, we supposed that during an acute large-scale epidemic such as the SARS and COVID-19 epidemic, even among persons who were not directly contaminated with the disease, the psychological influence of the outbreak on them was significant. In doing so, we identified three important stressors for college students in the COVID-19 pandemic, providing essential inspiration for college students to maintain their physical and mental health during the current epidemic.

Second, based on a transactional model view, we provide a plausible mechanism for explaining the association between academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion and health. The transactional model posits that stress responses emerge from appraisal processes that begin when individuals experience a stressor. During primary appraisal, perceptions of elements of the focal stressor are used to determine the degree of threat or harm that this stressor represents; during secondary appraisal, individuals consider if and how they can resolve the underlying stressor. COVID-19, a contagious respiratory illness, is an ongoing, global health crisis, and the greatest challenge we have faced since World War II [59]. The COVID-19 pandemic is a grim but illustrative anxiety-inducing stressor; an uncertain and ongoing threat that cannot be resolved via individual efforts. When individuals have few resources, ways, or abilities at their disposal to deal with the stressors, they generate stress and anxiety and ultimately lead to negative consequences. Thus, perceived stress may be a mediator, transmitting the effects of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion on health-related outcomes. These findings suggest that academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion may contribute to youth’s general perceived stress, which in turn, may negatively influence their physical and psychological health. Our findings supported Lorenzo-Blanco and Unger’s [60] and Sariçam’s [61] proposition that perceived stress plays an important role in influencing psychological well-being.

The results of the current study are of significance to practice and policy. First, the administrative department needs to raise the awareness of potential physical and mental health influences of home-schooling during the outbreak. While taking effective prevention measures, the government should guide the mass media to spread positive information and control rumors. Communication can serve as an important resource in dealing with the difficulties of family matters. For instance, parents can share their life experiences with their children and advocate for them to develop good living habits and enjoy a healthy lifestyle. Psychologists can communicate with students by social media platforms to help them cope with mental health issues caused by domestic conflicts, tension with parents, and anxiety from becoming infected. In addition, schools play an important role not only in providing students with educational materials but also in providing students with opportunities to interact with teachers and students. Schools should also provide guidelines and principles for effective online learning and ensure that content meets educational requirements. Nevertheless, it is also important not to overburden students.

Limitations

Despite the potential contribution that the present study makes to the mental health field, limitations of the study should be noted. First, a potential limitation is that all measures came from the same source, raising the potential for same-source measurement biases. However, we used a variety of means to reduce this issue, including varying our response scales and separating our measures in time. Further, as we were interested in how college students have dealt with the pandemic over time, focusing on self-reported experiences was appropriate. Another potential limitation of our study is concerned with causality. Hence, future research should conduct the experimental design or utilize the longitudinal data to ensure the conclusion reflects causation. Finally, our research reflects only the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for college students, and much work is needed to gain a complete understanding of the implications of this crisis for students. Future research could consider how individual factors, such as self-concept, and contextual factors, such as social support, may influence college students’ response to perceived stress. Moreover, research focused on within-person fluctuations of perceived stress during this time would also be instructive, as there is no doubt that individuals have experienced considerable variability on a daily basis during the pandemic.

Conclusions

Confronting the COVID-19 outbreak and variously rigorous measures to prevent the spreading of the infection, college students may feel stress and have more or fewer health problems. Academic workload, psychological separation from school, and fear of contagion were positively associated with the perceived stress and negatively associated with physical and psychological health. In addition, perceived stress is a key mechanism in the relationships between three stressors and two forms of health. This study makes not only unique theoretical contributions to the stress and health literature during the COVID-19 outbreak but also offers novel practical implications for joint efforts from all circles of society to ensure students’ health.

Supporting information

S1 Appendix

(DOCX)

S1 Data. Anonymized data.

(XLSX)

S1 File. Ethical approval.

(PDF)

Data Availability

All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. In addition, all data are available form the OSF database. The link is https://osf.io/ajfhw/ and the DOI is 10.17605/OSF.IO/AJFHW.

Funding Statement

National Natural Science Foundation of China (71572170). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

References

  • 1.Gao W, Ping S, Liu X. Gender differences in depression, anxiety, and stress among college students: a longitudinal study from China. J Affect Disord. 2020; 263: 292–300. 10.1016/j.jad.2019.11.121 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Hurst CS, Baranik LE, Daniel F. College student stressors: a review of the qualitative research. Work Stress. 2013; 29:275–85. 10.1002/smi.2465 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Coronavirus disease (COVID-2019) situation reports. [Cited 2020 July 11]. Available from: https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/situation-reports.
  • 4.Wang G, Zhang Y, Zhao J, Zhang J, Jiang F. Mitigate the effects of home confinement on children during the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet. 2020; 395:945–7. 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30547-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Liu ZH, Zhao YJ., Feng Y, Zhang Q, Zhong BL, Cheung T, et al. Migrant workers in China need emergency psychological interventions during the COVID-19 outbreak. Glob Health. 2020; 16:1–3. 10.1186/s12992-020-00608-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Chen Q, Liang M, Li Y, Guo J, Fei D, Wang L, et al. Mental health care for medical staff in China during the COVID-19 outbreak. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020; 7: e15–6. 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30078-X [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Abouserie R. Sources and levels of stress in relation to locus of control and self-esteem in university students. Educ Psychol. 1994; 14:323–30. 10.1080/0144341940140306 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Ross SE, Niebling BC, Heckert TM. Sources of stress among college students. Soc Psychol. 1999; 61:841–6. 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30078-X [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Seligman LD, Wuyek LA. Correlates of separation anxiety symptoms among first-semester college students: An exploratory study. J Psychol. 2007; 141:135–45. 10.3200/JRLP.141.2.135-146 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Sontag S. The image-world, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA, 1977. [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Hsiang S, Allen D, Annan-Phan S, Bell K, Bolliger I, Chong T, et al. The effect of large-scale anti-contagion policies on the COVID-19 pandemic. Nature. 2020;584: 262–7. 10.1038/s41586-020-2404-8 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Main A, Zhou Q, Ma Y, Luecken LJ, Liu X. Relations of SARS-related stressors and coping to Chinese college students’ psychological adjustment during the 2003 Beijing SARS epidemic. J Couns Psychol. 2011; 58:410–23. 10.1037/a0023632 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.Ang RP, Huan VS. Academic expectations stress inventory: development, factor analysis, reliability, and validity. Educ Psychol Meas. 2006; 66:522–39. 10.1177/0013164405282461 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Corsano P, Majorano M, Champretavy L. Psychological well-being in adolescence: the contribution of interpersonal relations and experience of being alone. Adolescence. 2006; 41:341–54. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Brewster ME, Moradi B, DeBlaere C, Velez BL. Navigating the borderlands: the roles of minority stressors, bicultural self-efficacy, and cognitive flexibility in the mental health of bisexual individuals. J Couns Psychol. 2013; 60:543–56. 10.1037/a0033224 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Barker ET, Howard AL, Villemaire-Krajden R, Galambos NL. The rise and fall of depressive symptoms and academic stress in two samples of university students. J Youth Adolesc. 2018; 47:1252–66. 10.1007/s10964-018-0822-9 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Coombs RH, Fawzy FI. The effect of marital status on stress in medical school. Am J Psychiatry. 1982;139: 1490–3. 10.1176/ajp.139.11.1490 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Huebner LA, Royer JA, Moore J. The assessment and remediation of dysfunctional stress in medical school. J Med Educ. 1981; 56:547–58. 10.1097/00001888-198107000-00002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Karaman MA, Watson JC. Examining associations among achievement motivation, locus of control, academic stress, and life satisfaction: a comparison of US and international undergraduate students. Pers Individ Differ. 2017; 111:106–10. 10.1016/j.paid.2017.02.006 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Coiro MJ, Bettis AH, Compas BE. College students coping with interpersonal stress: examining a control-based model of coping. J Am Coll Health. 2017; 65: 177–86. 10.1080/07448481.2016.1266641 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Siegel DM, Burke TA, Hamilton JL, Piccirillo ML, Scharff A, Alloy LB. Social anxiety and interpersonal stress generation: the moderating role of interpersonal distress. Anxiety Stress Coping. 2018; 31:526–38. 10.1080/10615806.2018.1482723 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.Campisi J, May J, Burch K, Larson K, Doscher J, Doherty S, et al. Anxiety-inducing Facebook behavior is associated with higher rates of upper respiratory infection in college-aged users. Comput Hum Behav. 2017; 76:211–7. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.07.022 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Metzger IW, Cooper SM, Ritchwood TD, Onyeuku C, Griffin CB. Profiles of African American college students’ alcohol use and sexual behaviors: associations with stress, racial discrimination, and social support. J Sex Res. 2017; 54:374–85. 10.1080/00224499.2016.1179709 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Akgun S, Ciarrochi J. Learned resourcefulness moderates the relationship between academic stress and academic performance. Educ Psychol. 2003; 23:287–94. 10.1080/0144341032000060129 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Aldwin C, Greenberger E. Cultural differences in the predictors of depression. Am J Community Psychol. 1987; 15:789–813. 10.1007/BF00919803 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Schafer W. Stress, Management for Wellness. Harcourt Brace College: Fort Worth, USA, 1996.
  • 27.Thoits PA. Stress, coping, and social support processes: where are we? What next? J Health Soc Behav. 1995; 53–79. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Misra R, Castillo LG. Academic stress among college students: comparison of American and international students. Int J Stress Manag. 2004; 11:132–48. 10.1037/1072-5245.11.2.132 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Deb S, Strodl E, Sun J. Academic stress, parental pressure, anxiety and mental health among Indian high school students. Int J Stress Manag. 2015; 5:26–34. 10.5923/j.ijpbs.20150501.04 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Subramani C. Kadhiravan S. Academic stress and mental health among high school students. Indian J Anim Res. 2017; 7:404–6. [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Yusoff MSB, Rahim AFA, Baba AA, Ismail SB, Pa MNM. Prevalence and associated factors of stress, anxiety and depression among prospective medical students. Asian J Psychiatr. 2013; 6:128–33. 10.1016/j.ajp.2012.09.012 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Beiter R, Nash R, McCrady M, Rhoades D, Linscomb M, Clarahan M, et al. The prevalence and correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students. J Affect Disord. 2015; 173:90–6. 10.1016/j.jad.2014.10.054 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 33.Ng V, Koh D, Chia SE. Examination stress, salivary cortisol, and academic performance. Psychol Rep. 2003; 93:1133–4. 10.2466/pr0.2003.93.3f.1133 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Sarid O, Anson O, Yaari A, Margalith M. Academic stress, immunological reaction, and academic performance among students of nursing and physiotherapy. Res Nurs Health. 2004; 27:370–7. 10.1002/nur.20028 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Hystad SW, Eid J, Laberg JC, Johnsen BH, Bartone PT. Academic stress and health: exploring the moderating role of personality hardiness. Scand J Educ Res. 2009;53;421–9. 10.1080/00313830903180349 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Wintre MG, Sugar LA. Relationships with parents, personality, and the university transition. J Coll Stud Dev. 2000; 41:202–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Bettmann JE, Tucker A, Behrens E, Vanderloo M. Changes in late adolescents and young adults’ attachment, separation, and mental health during wilderness therapy. J Child Fam Stud. 2017; 26:511–22. 10.1007/s10826-016-0577-4 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Han S, Pistole MC, Caldwell JM. Acculturative stress, parental and professor attachment, and college adjustment in Asian international students. J Multicult Couns Devel. 2017; 45:111–26. 10.1002/jmcd.12068 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Phang A, Fan W, Arbona C. Secure attachment and career indecision: the mediating role of emotional intelligence. J Career Dev. 2018;1–14. 10.1177/0894845318814366 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Guisinger S, Blatt SJ. Individuality and relatedness: evolution of a fundamental dialectic. Am Psychol. 1994; 49:104–11. 10.1037/0003-066X.49.2.104 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.France MK, Finney SJ, Swerdzewski P. Students’ group and member attachment to their university: a construct validity study of the University Attachment Scale. Educ Psychol Meas. 2010; 70:440–58. 10.1177/0013164409344510 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Abrams D, Hogg MA. Social identifications: A social psychology of intergroup relations and group processes. Routledge: London, England, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Shiralkar MT, Harris TB, Eddins-Folensbee FF, Coverdale JH. A systematic review of stress-management programs for medical students. Acad Psychiatry. 2013; 37:158–64. 10.1176/appi.ap.12010003 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Gordon-Hollingsworth AT, Yao N, Chen H, Qian M, Chen S. Understanding the impact of natural disasters on psychological outcomes in youth from mainland China: a meta-analysis of risk and protective factors for post-traumatic stress disorder Symptoms. J Child Adolesc Trauma. 2018; 11:205–26. 10.1007/s40653-015-0051-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Paz García-Vera M, Sanz J, Gutiérrez S. A systematic review of the literature on posttraumatic stress disorder in victims of terrorist attacks. Psychol Rep. 2016; 119:328–59. 10.1177/0033294116658243 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Maunder R. The experience of the 2003 SARS outbreak as a traumatic stress among frontline healthcare workers in Toronto: Lessons learned. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2004; 359:1117–25. 10.1098/rstb.2004.1483 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Wang Y, Wang Y, Chen Y, Qin Q. Unique epidemiological and clinical features of the emerging 2019 novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID‐19) implicate special control measures. J Med Virol. 2020; 92: 568–76. 10.1002/jmv.25748 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Achenbach J. Coronavirus Is Harming The Mental Health Of Tens Of Millions Of People in U.S., New Poll Finds. Washington Post. 2020 Apr 2 [Cited 2021 January 1]. Available from: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/coronavirus-isharming-the-mental-health-of-tens-of-millions-of-people-in-us-newpoll-finds/2020/04/02/565e6744-74ee-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html.
  • 49.Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, appraisal, and coping. Springer: New York, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Glanz K, Rimer BK, Viswanath K. Health behavior: Theory, research, and practice. John Wiley & Sons: San Francisco, CA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Folkman S, Lazarus RS. If it changes it must be a process: study of emotion and coping during three stages of a college examination. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1985; 48:150–70. 10.1037//0022-3514.48.1.150 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Lazarus RS. Psychological stress in the workplace. Occupational stress: A handbook 1995; 1:3–14. [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Lee JY, Podsakoff NP. Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J Appl Psychol. 2003; 88:879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Smith ER, Murphy J, Coats S. Attachment to groups: theory and management. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1999; 77:94–110. 10.1037//0022-3514.77.1.94 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Cohen S, Kamarck T, Mermelstein R. Perceived stress scale. Measuring stress: a guide for health and social scientists, 1994. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Podsakoff PM, MacKenzie SB, Podsakoff NP. Sources of method bias in social science research and recommendations on how to control it. Annu Rev Psychol. 2012; 63:539–69. 10.1146/annurev-psych-120710-100452 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, et al. Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. Lancet Psychiatry. 2020;1–14. 10.1016/S2215-0366(19)30483-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Sun W, Wu M, Qu P, Lu C, Wang L. Psychological well-being of people living with HIV/AIDS under the new epidemic characteristics in China and the risk factors: a population-based study. Int J Infect Dis. 2014; 28:147–52. 10.1016/j.ijid.2014.07.010 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.United Nations. (2020). The UN Office for Disarmament Affairs remains active and committed: how the covid-19 pandemic is affecting the work of disarmament. Retrieved fromhttps://www.un.org/disarmament/how-the-covid-19-pandemic-is-affecting-the-work-of disarmament/
  • 60.Lorenzo-Blanco EI, Unger JB. Ethnic discrimination, acculturative stress, and family conflict as predictors of depressive symptoms and cigarette smoking among Latina/o youth: the mediating role of perceived stress. J Youth Adolesc. 2015; 44:1984–97. 10.1007/s10964-015-0339-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Sariçam H. Metacognition and happiness: the mediating role of perceived stress. Stud Psychol. 2015; 57: 271–83. [Google Scholar]

Decision Letter 0

Chung-Ying Lin

30 Dec 2020

PONE-D-20-32875

College students’ stress and health during the COVID-19 outbreak: the effects of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion

PLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Yang,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

==============================

One expert in this field has carefully reviewed your submission and he pointed out some merits in your work. However, a major concern regarding the sampling should be tackled in the revision. That says, the samples seemed to be different across time points and the authors should provide clear rationale and how they take care of the methodology issues if they really used different samples. This is a fatal point for me to judge whether the revision can be accepted. 

==============================

Please submit your revised manuscript by Feb 13 2021 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org. When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

  • A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.

  • A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.

  • An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Chung-Ying Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

1. Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Please ensure that you include a title page within your main document.

We do appreciate that you have a title page document uploaded as a separate file, however, as per our author guidelines (http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-title-page) we do require this to be part of the manuscript file itself and not uploaded separately.

Could you therefore please include the title page into the beginning of your manuscript file itself, listing all authors and affiliations.

3. Please provide additional details regarding participant consent.

In the ethics statement in the Methods and online submission information, please ensure that you have specified (i) whether consent was informed and (ii) what type you obtained (for instance, written or verbal, and if verbal, how it was documented and witnessed). If your study included minors, state whether you obtained consent from parents or guardians. If the need for consent was waived by the ethics committee, please include this information.

If you are reporting a retrospective study of medical records or archived samples, please ensure that you have discussed whether all data were fully anonymized before you accessed them and/or whether the IRB or ethics committee waived the requirement for informed consent. If patients provided informed written consent to have data from their medical records used in research, please include this information.

4. Please include additional information regarding the survey or questionnaire used in the study and ensure that you have provided sufficient details that others could replicate the analyses.

For instance, if you developed a questionnaire as part of this study and it is not under a copyright more restrictive than CC-BY, please include a copy, in both the original language and English, as Supporting Information, or include a citation if it has been published previously.

5. In the Methods, please discuss whether and how the questionnaire was validated and/or pre-tested. If these did not occur, please provide the rationale for not doing so.

6. We note that you have indicated that data from this study are available upon request. PLOS only allows data to be available upon request if there are legal or ethical restrictions on sharing data publicly. For more information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions.

In your revised cover letter, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially sensitive information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., an ethics committee). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings as either Supporting Information files or to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. For a list of acceptable repositories, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-recommended-repositories.

We will update your Data Availability statement on your behalf to reflect the information you provide

7. Your ethics statement should only appear in the Methods section of your manuscript. If your ethics statement is written in any section besides the Methods, please delete it from any other section.

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In general, this is a good study considering the concept backed by a sound theoretical framework. However, authors need to improve the study’s write-up in several sections of the manuscript especially the English language. I will strongly recommend a native English Language speaker to edit it.

Introduction

Hypotheses

Knowing that we cannot make a causal inference from this study, it will be more prudent to use associate/relate rather than affect.

Methods:

Page 8: Procedure and Participants

Can authors justify why they used different samples for each Time wave and how they resolve the confounding issues arising from this method?

Also, there seems to be a typo in the number of data collected for wave one.

Authors should start a sentence with words and not figures as did with 49.2% and 56.2%.

Measures

Authors may want to revise this section incorporating the number of items per scale, the original developer (author) of each scale, original psychometric property, and how it was scored in this study. Much more importantly, the psychometric properties of these measures for this study.

Data analysis

Authors may end the method section with the above sub-title. This section may detail the types of analytic tools used and the purposes for using them. Cut-off or other criteria related to these analytic tools may be written here.

Results

Tests for common method variance: The first sentence under this sub-section seems incomplete.

Table 3: for bivariate relationships, authors may take out categorical variables from the results as it does not make meaning.

Table 4: Authors may add further details to the table as effect and CI are not enough to get a better picture of the analysis/data.

Discussion

Page 14: “Given the ongoing COVID -19 epidemic to inducing panic, and anxiety [49], therefore, timely and…” this sentence is difficult to understand, please revise.

Authors may try to relate the theory to the findings thoroughly.

Explaining the “SFS” with separation anxiety disorder is too far-fetched (exaggerated and unconvincing). Besides, these are students above 17 year old. SFS have a role to play in the lives of students but not from the angle of separation anxiety but probably as a supporting/coping strategy.

Limitation

The way the authors reported the procedure of the data collection did not reflect a cross-sectional design. Hence, it will make readers doubt the authenticity/validity of this study.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/. PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org. Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

PLoS One. 2021 Feb 10;16(2):e0246676. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246676.r002

Author response to Decision Letter 0


13 Jan 2021

A Point-by-Point Response to Editor Comments

Your comment:

One expert in this field has carefully reviewed your submission and he pointed out some merits in your work. However, a major concern regarding the sampling should be tackled in the revision. That says, the samples seemed to be different across time points and the authors should provide clear rationale and how they take care of the methodology issues if they really used different samples. This is a fatal point for me to judge whether the revision can be accepted.

Our response:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our paper. We hope that you find this revised manuscript significantly improved and up to your expectation.

Thank you for your question. Indeed, although the numbers of participants are different across time points, we didn’t use different samples in our research.

First, we explain what the time-lagged design is and why it is used in our research.

The time-lagged design is a type of research design in which the same person reports information or data of different variables at different time points, which has been widely used in science research (e.g., Laschinger & Fida, 2014; SPENCE LASCHINGER & Finegan, 2008; Kilroy et al., 2017). The time-lagged design can ensure the constructs we concerned would be less influenced by common method bias (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 2003). Generally, the independent variables (IV) are first collected at Time-1, and then the mediation variables (mediators) at Time-2, and finally the dependent variables (DV) at Time-3 from the same person. In our research, academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion are independent variables, perceived stress is a mediator, and health is a dependent variable. Thus, we used the time-lagged design and these data of different variables were collected at three time points with one-week interval.

Second, we describe how to conduct the collection of data and explain that we didn’t use different samples in our study.

In the first-wave survey (Time 1), participants were asked to report their academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, and necessary demographic information, and we got 1072 questionnaires. One week later (Time 2), perceived stress needs to be measured, and we distributed questionnaires to the 1,072 people who had participated in the first-wave survey. However, 127 participants quit the survey and we got 945 questionnaires at Time 2 (valid response rate: 945/1072=88.15%). One week after the second-wave survey (Time 3), physical and psychological health needs to be measured, and we distributed questionnaires to the 945 people who had participated in both the first-wave and second-wave survey. However, 78 participants quit the survey, and we got 867 questionnaires at Time 3(valid response rate: 867/945=91.95%). That is, we got completed data, including the data of all variables used in our research from 867 participants who participated in three surveys. In the data analysis, we used data from only 867 participants. Because some participants did not participate fully in the three surveys, their data was incomplete and thus could not be included in the study. That is, because some participants dropped out of the survey during the data collection process, the number of participants varied at different time points, as shown in Figure 1.

Reference:

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 739-753.

SPENCE LASCHINGER, H. K., & Finegan, J. (2008). Situational and dispositional predictors of nurse manager burnout: a time‐lagged analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(5), 601-607.

Kilroy, S., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., & Chênevert, D. (2017). Perceptions of high‐involvement work practices, person‐organization fit, and burnout: A time‐lagged study of health care employees. Human Resource Management, 56(5), 821-835.

A Point-by-Point Response to Reviewer Comments

Your comment:

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Partly

Our response:

Thank you very much. Following your suggestions, we carefully revised the manuscript. All changes were marked in blue text. Below please see our point-to-point response to your comments. We hope that you find this revised manuscript significantly improved and up to your expectation.

Your comment:

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Our response:

Thank you very much for your recognition and support!

Your comment:

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: No

Our response:

Thank you very much. We would like to provide and share the data we used in our research.

Your comment:

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Our response:

Thank you very much for your recognition and support!

Your comment:

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: In general, this is a good study considering the concept backed by a sound theoretical framework. However, authors need to improve the study’s write-up in several sections of the manuscript especially the English language. I will strongly recommend a native English Language speaker to edit it.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your recognition and support! We have had a professional copy editor with English as her first language to thoroughly go through the draft. We are confident that the writing has been improved and hope that the revised manuscript will meet your requirements. All changes were marked in blue in the revised manuscript.

Your comment:

Introduction

Hypotheses

Knowing that we cannot make a causal inference from this study, it will be more prudent to use associate/relate rather than affect.

Our response:

Thank you very much. Following your suggestion, we use associate/relate rather than affect in the revised manuscript. All changes were marked in blue text.

Please see

Page 2 Line 44-Page 8 Line 208:

Page 8 Line 210-Page 9 Line 220:

Our primary aim in the study was to examine the influence of stressors on college students’ stress and health during the COVID-19 outbreak. Specifically, we empirically examine the influence of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion on college students’ psychology and physiology health that included perceived stress as a mediator. Based on the literature review, we hypothesized:

H1a: Academic workload is positively correlated with perceived stress.

H1b: Academic workload is negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

H2a: Separation from school is positively correlated with perceived stress.

H2b: Separation from school is negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

H3a: Fears of contagion are positively correlated with perceived stress.

H3b: Fears of contagion are negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

H4: Perceived stress is negatively correlated with physical and mental health.

Your comment:

Methods:

Page 8: Procedure and Participants

Can authors justify why they used different samples for each Time wave and how they resolve the confounding issues arising from this method?

Our response:

Thank you for giving us the opportunity to revise our paper. We hope that you find this revised manuscript significantly improved and up to your expectation.

Thank you for your question. Indeed, although the numbers of participants are different across time points, we didn’t use different samples in our research.

First, we explain what the time-lagged design is and why it is used in our research.

The time-lagged design is a type of research design in which the same person reports information or data of different variables at different time points, which has been widely used in science research (e.g., Laschinger & Fida, 2014; SPENCE LASCHINGER & Finegan, 2008; Kilroy et al., 2017). The time-lagged design can ensure the constructs we concerned would be less influenced by common method bias (e.g., Podsakoff et al. 2003). Generally, the independent variables (IV) are first collected at Time-1, and then the mediation variables (mediators) at Time-2, and finally the dependent variables (DV) at Time-3 from the same person. In our research, academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion are independent variables, perceived stress is a mediator, and health is a dependent variable. Thus, we used the time-lagged design and these data of different variables were collected at three time points with one-week interval.

Second, we describe how to conduct the collection of data and explain that we didn’t use different samples in our study.

In the first-wave survey (Time 1), participants were asked to report their academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, and necessary demographic information, and we got 1072 questionnaires. One week later (Time 2), perceived stress needs to be measured, and we distributed questionnaires to the 1,072 people who had participated in the first-wave survey. However, 127 participants quit the survey and we got 945 questionnaires at Time 2 (valid response rate: 945/1072=88.15%). One week after the second-wave survey (Time 3), physical and psychological health needs to be measured, and we distributed questionnaires to the 945 people who had participated in both the first-wave and second-wave survey. However, 78 participants quit the survey, and we got 867 questionnaires at Time 3(valid response rate: 867/945=91.95%). That is, we got completed data, including the data of all variables used in our research from 867 participants who participated in three surveys. In the data analysis, we used data from only 867 participants. Because some participants did not participate fully in the three surveys, their data was incomplete and thus could not be included in the study. That is, because some participants dropped out of the survey during the data collection process, the number of participants varied at different time points, as shown in Figure 1.

Reference:

Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J. Y., & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of applied psychology, 88(5), 879.

Laschinger, H. K. S., & Fida, R. (2014). A time-lagged analysis of the effect of authentic leadership on workplace bullying, burnout, and occupational turnover intentions. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 23(5), 739-753.

SPENCE LASCHINGER, H. K., & Finegan, J. (2008). Situational and dispositional predictors of nurse manager burnout: a time‐lagged analysis. Journal of Nursing Management, 16(5), 601-607.

Kilroy, S., Flood, P. C., Bosak, J., & Chênevert, D. (2017). Perceptions of high‐involvement work practices, person‐organization fit, and burnout: A time‐lagged study of health care employees. Human Resource Management, 56(5), 821-835.

Your comment:

Also, there seems to be a typo in the number of data collected for wave one.

Authors should start a sentence with words and not figures as did with 49.2% and 56.2%.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your advice. We have corrected the typo in the number of data collected for wave one. In addition, we have started the sentence with words and not figures.

Please see Page 9 Line 245- Line 247:

In the first-wave survey (Time 1), participants were asked to report their academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, and necessary demographic information. In Time 1, 1072 completed questionnaires were returned.

Please see Page 10 Line 254- Line 256:

Nearly half of the participants said they wanted or very much wanted the school to start soon (49.2%). Of the 867 college students who had participated, 56.2% of them were concerned or very concerned about the possibility of contracting COVID-19 after the semester began.

Your comment:

Measures

Authors may want to revise this section incorporating the number of items per scale, the original developer (author) of each scale, original psychometric property, and how it was scored in this study. Much more importantly, the psychometric properties of these measures for this study.

Our response:

Thank you very much. We carefully revised this section. In the revised manuscript, we described the number of items per scale, the original developer of each scale, the reliability of the original scale, and the reliability of scale in our research. All items we used in the research has been provided in Appendix. In addition, we described that participants responded to items on a 7-point scale or 5-point scale. Specifically, the scale of physical and psychological health has its Chinese version, and thus we can directly use it in our research. The scales of academic workload, separation from school, and perceived stress have their English version, and thus we followed the translation/back-translation procedure to translate English to Chinese. Finally, we developed the scale of fears of contagion, and test its reliability and validity. Based on the results of Cronbach's α, we found that the psychometric properties of these measures for this study are acceptable.

Please see Page 10 Line 259- Page 12 Line 294:

Measures

We translated the measures from English to Chinese following the commonly used translation/back-translation procedure. All measures are reported in Appendix A. Unless otherwise noted, participants responded to all items on a 7-point scale (from 1=strongly disagree to 7=strongly agree).

Academic workload

It was measured using the three-item scale developed by Hystad et al. [35]. Items included: “I am spending a lot of time thinking about how this semester’s grades could negatively affect my educational and career goals,” “I am worrying a great deal about the effect this semester’s grades will have on my future,” and “I find myself very concerned about the grades I am likely to receive this semester.” Cronbach’s alpha in their study was .85, which suggests that this scale has good reliability. In the current study, Cronbach's α of this variable is .883.

Separation from school

Separation from school was measured using the attachment avoidance scale developed by Smith et al. [54]. The scale has fifteen-item. An example of a reworded scale item is “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on my group.” Factor analytic results in their research suggested that the scale has good reliability. In our current study, we reworded to refer to participants' classmates rather than their social group. An example of a reworded scale item is “I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on my classmates.” Cronbach's α of this variable is

.929.

Fears of contagion

We developed a six-item scale to assess participants’ fears of COVID-19 infection. Six items included “In public, I don't care about touching the door handle without protection,” “In public, I don’t mind sitting in a chair that has just been sat on,” “In an elevator, I don’t mind pushing a button without protection,” “When I’m in a crowded place, I don’t worry about coronavirus from other people,” “I don't worry about infection if other people don't wear masks,” “Wearing a mask would make me feel safe.” In the current study, Cronbach's α of this variable is .842. The results of confirmatory factor analysis are shown that χ2 = 74.424; df = 8; RMSEA = .098; CFI =.982; TLI = .966; SRMR = .043. Thus, this scale has acceptable reliability and validity.

Perceived stress

The 10-item Perceived Stress Scale [55] was used to measure the student’s stress level in the past month. Participants responded to the items on a 5-point scale (from1=never to 5=very often). A sample item is “In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and “stressed”?” In our research, Cronbach's α of this variable is .792.

Physical and psychological health

The CHQ-12 of the Chinese version was used to measure physical and psychological health. The CHQ-12 has been widely used in Chinese populations. The 12 items included headaches, heart palpitations, chest pain or tightening, trembling or pins and needles, sleeplessness, nervousness, and hopelessness. Participants responded to the items on a 4-point scale (1= not at all, 4=more than usual). A higher score represented a more severe psychosocial impairment. In our research, Cronbach's α of this variable is .895.

Please see Page 24 Line 622- Page 26 Line 677:

Appendix

Academic workload

1. I am spending a lot of time thinking about how this semester’s grades could negatively affect my educational and career goals.

2. I am worrying a great deal about the effect this semester’s grades will have on my future.

3. I find myself very concerned about the grades I am likely to receive this semester.

Separation from school

1. I find it difficult to allow myself to depend on my group.

2. I sometimes worry that I will be hurt if I allow myself to become too close to my group.

3. I am nervous when my group gets too close.

4. My desire to feel completely at one sometimes scares my group away.

5. I prefer not to depend on my group or to have my group depend on me.

6. I often worry that my group does not really accept me.

7. I am comfortable not being close to my group.

8. I often worry my group will not always want me as a member.

9. I am somewhat uncomfortable being close to my group.

10. My group is never there when I need it.

11. I find it difficult to completely trust my group.

12. I find my group is reluctant to get as close as I would like.

13. I am not sure that I can always depend on my group to be there when I need it.

14. I sometimes worry that my group doesn't value me as much as I value my group.

15. I want to be emotionally close with my group, but I find it difficult to trust my group completely or to depend on my group.

Fears of contagion

1. In public, I don't care about touching the door handle without protection.

2. In public, I don’t mind sitting in a chair that has just been sat on.

3. In an elevator, I don’t mind pushing a button without protection.

4. When I’m in a crowded place, I don't worry about coronavirus from other people.

5. I don't worry about infection if other people don't wear masks.

6. Wearing a mask would make me feel safe.

Perceived stress

1. In the last month, how often have you been upset because of something that happened unexpectedly?

2. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were unable to control the important things in your life?

3. In the last month, how often have you felt nervous and “stressed”?

4. In the last month, how often have you felt confident about your ability to handle your personal problems?

5. In the last month, how often have you felt that things were going your way?

6. In the last month, how often have you found that you could not cope with all the things that you had to do?

7. In the last month, how often have you been able to control irritations in your life?

8. In the last month, how often have you felt that you were on top of things?

9. In the last month, how often have you been angered because of things that were outside of your control?

10. In the last month, how often have you felt difficulties were piling up so high that you could not overcome them?

Physical and psychological health

Have you recently...

1. been suffering from headache or pressure in your head?

2. had palpitation and worried that you might have heart trouble?

3. had discomfort or a feeling of pressure in your chest?

4. been suffering from shaking or numbness of your limbs?

5. lost much sleep through worry?

6. been taking things hard?

7. been getting along well with your family or friends?

8. been losing confidence in yourself?

9. been feeling nervous and strung-up all the time?

10. been feeling hopeful about your future?

11. been worried about your family or close friends?

12. felt that life is entirely hopeless?

Your comment:

Data analysis

Authors may end the method section with the above sub-title. This section may detail the types of analytic tools used and the purposes for using them. Cut-off or other criteria related to these analytic tools may be written here.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your advice. Following your suggestion, we have added the sub-title and provide more details about the types of analytic tools used, the purposes for using them and so on.

Please see Page 12 Line 297- Line 314:

Analysis strategy

First, we conducted a series of confirmatory factor analyses (CFA) in order to test the discriminant validity of the five prime constructs (academic workload, separation from school, fears of contagion, perceived stress, and health). CFA, as an empirical research technology, is affiliated with structural equation modeling. Therefore, it is necessary to judge the fitting situation according to the fitting indexes from the structural equation model. Common fitting indexes include chi-square(χ2), degree of freedom (df), CFI, TLI, RMSEA, and SRMR. Specifically, if the ratio of chi square to degree of freedom is less than 5, the model is generally acceptable. When CFI and TLI are higher than 0.9, the model fits well. The smaller the RMSEA and SRMR, the better the result, and in particular, when it is below 0.08, the model is acceptable. Second, we performed Harman’s single-factor test to explore the potential influence of common method variance. No single factor accounting for more than 50% of the variance of all the relevant items indicates that the results are acceptable. Third, we calculated Pearson’s correlation coefficient using SPSS Version 21, which reflects the effect of change in one variable when the other variable changes. Fourth, we tested our hypotheses using a path analysis in Mplus Version 8.3. To examine mediation (Hypothesis 5,6, and 7), we used a bootstrap simulation with 1,000 replications to create our bias-corrected 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around our indirect effects. The bootstrap approach is a more robust strategy than the causal step procedure for small samples for assessing indirect effects and a useful method for avoiding power problems relating to a non-normal sampling of the indirect effect. When the 95% confidence interval of the path coefficient does not contain zero, the mediating effect is significant.

Your comment:

Results

Tests for common method variance: The first sentence under this sub-section seems incomplete.

Table 3: for bivariate relationships, authors may take out categorical variables from the results as it does not make meaning.

Table 4: Authors may add further details to the table as effect and CI are not enough to get a better picture of the analysis/data.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your advice. First, we revised the first sentence under this sub-section and make it complete. Second, we deleted the section of categorical variables in Table 3. Third, we provide more details about the analysis/data.

Please see Page 13 Line 332- Line 338:

Tests for Common Method Variance

Because we collected student’s self-report of fears of contagion, separation from school, academic workload, and perceived stress and health in the study, common method variance (CMV) may present as a problem. Therefore, we measured different constructs at different time points to decrease common method variance as much as possible [56] and showed high respect for the security, anonymity, and privacy of research objects and informants. In addition, the results of Harman’s single-factor test suggest that an exploratory factor analysis of all items explained 68.86% of the total variance, and the largest factor accounted for only 24.73% of the variance.

Please see Page 14 Line 348- Line 349:

Please see Page 15 Line 372- Line 374:

Your comment:

Discussion

Page 14: “Given the ongoing COVID -19 epidemic to inducing panic, and anxiety [49], therefore, timely and…” this sentence is difficult to understand, please revise.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your advice. We have revised this confused sentence.

Please see Page 15 Line 375- Line 388:

Discussion

The spread of COVID-19 is becoming unstoppable and has already influenced people and countries all over the world. Holmes et al. [57] called for that multidisciplinary science research must be central to the international response to the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence-based guidance on responding to promoting people’s health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. To answer this call, we focus on college students getting home-schooling to explore their stress and health problems. Although the COVID-19 is still spreading rapidly and widely worldwide, it has been effectively controlled in China. What has happened in China shows that quarantine, social distancing, and isolation of infected populations can contain the epidemic. Whereas individual coping strategies are possible (e.g., social distancing), the spread of the virus at a state level is still beyond any given individual’s control. The continuous spread of the epidemic, strict isolation measures, and delays in starting schools, colleges, and universities across the country are expected to influence college students. Considering stress and anxiety associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic for college students [49], it is urgent for the society and management departments to understand the actual situation of college students timely and accurately.

Your comment:

Authors may try to relate the theory to the findings thoroughly.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your advice. Following your suggestion, we integrated theory with our findings thoroughly in the revised manuscript.

Please see Page 15 Line 375- Page 17 Line 432:

Discussion

The spread of COVID-19 is becoming unstoppable and has already influenced people and countries all over the world. Holmes et al. [57] called for that multidisciplinary science research must be central to the international response to the COVID-19 pandemic and provide evidence-based guidance on responding to promoting people’s health and wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic. To answer this call, we focus on college students getting home-schooling to explore their stress and health problems. Although the COVID-19 is still spreading rapidly and widely worldwide, it has been effectively controlled in China. What has happened in China shows that quarantine, social distancing, and isolation of infected populations can contain the epidemic. Whereas individual coping strategies are possible (e.g., social distancing), the spread of the virus at a state level is still beyond any given individual’s control. The continuous spread of the epidemic, strict isolation measures, and delays in starting schools, colleges, and universities across the country are expected to influence college students. Considering stress and anxiety associated with the current COVID-19 pandemic for college students [49], it is urgent for the society and management departments to understand the actual situation of college students timely and accurately. Based on the Transactional Model of Stress and coping [49], this study explored the influence of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion on college students’ physical and physiological health, as well as the mediating effect of perceived stress in those relationships.

The current study contributes to the existing literature. First, the present study goes beyond previous literature on college students’ health during the epidemic by integrating three types of stressors from different fields in the proposed model. As highlighted in previous research on college students’ academic stress, preparing exams, courses, and papers should exhibit a negative effect on individual health. During the COVID-19 outbreak, Chinese college students’ learning was not suspended, but they attend the various courses offered online follow the regular schedule. While those measures of the virtual semester ensure regular study, they also cause stress on students. In addition, given the importance of social groups to an individual’s identity and self-worth, we found that college students were separated from their classmates during the COVID-19 epidemic, which brought them stress and anxiety. Previous evidence suggests that college students usually keep attachment relationships with their social group [12,58]. Attachment figures are usually parents, but may also be siblings, grandparents, or group. Unlike most previous studies that focused on separation from parents [9], this study focused on the influence of departure from school and schoolmates, which is particularly relevant to the epidemic situation. For college students attached to their school or classmates, school-closure is a kind of separation experience, which may be different from their experience when they leave home. Considering the relatively new separation (separation from school) caused by the outbreak of COVID-19, our findings suggest that separation from school was positively related to college students’ perceived stress during home-schooling. Finally, we found that exposure to a potentially infectious environment would lead to people’s stress, which is in line with previous research that pointed out the negative correlation between the risk of infection and life satisfaction [58]. Similar results have been found in the study of College Students’ psychological adjustment during SARS. For example, Main et al. [12] found that the experience of SARS-related stressors was positively associated with psychological symptoms for Chinese college students during the outbreak. Thus, we supposed that during an acute large-scale epidemic such as the SARS and COVID-19 epidemic, even among persons who were not directly contaminated with the disease, the psychological influence of the outbreak on them was significant. In doing so, we identified three important stressors for college students in the COVID-19 pandemic, providing essential inspiration for college students to maintain their physical and mental health during the current epidemic.

Second, based on a transactional model view, we provide a plausible mechanism for explaining the association between academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion and health. The transactional model posits that stress responses emerge from appraisal processes that begin when individuals experience a stressor. During primary appraisal, perceptions of elements of the focal stressor are used to determine the degree of threat or harm that this stressor represents; during secondary appraisal, individuals consider if and how they can resolve the underlying stressor. COVID-19, a contagious respiratory illness, is an ongoing, global health crisis, and the greatest challenge we have faced since World War II [59]. The COVID-19 pandemic is a grim but illustrative anxiety-inducing stressor; an uncertain and ongoing threat that cannot be resolved via individual efforts. When individuals have few resources, ways, or abilities at their disposal to deal with the stressors, they generate stress and anxiety and ultimately lead to negative consequences. Thus, perceived stress may be a mediator, transmitting the effects of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion on health-related outcomes. These findings suggest that academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion may contribute to youth’s general perceived stress, which in turn, may negatively influence their physical and psychological health. Our findings supported Lorenzo-Blanco and Unger’s [60] and Sariçam’s [61] proposition that perceived stress plays an important role in influencing psychological well-being.

Your comment:

Explaining the “SFS” with separation anxiety disorder is too far-fetched (exaggerated and unconvincing). Besides, these are students above 17 year old. SFS have a role to play in the lives of students but not from the angle of separation anxiety but probably as a supporting/coping strategy.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your advice. Following your suggestion, we explained “SFS” from the point of attachment in the revised manuscript. From a supporting/coping strategy, we provided some advice to help college students keep healthy when they separate from school.

Please see Page 16 Line 397- Line 406:

In addition, given the importance of social groups to an individual’s identity and self-worth, we found that college students were separated from their classmates during the COVID-19 epidemic, which brought them stress and anxiety. Previous evidence suggests that college students usually keep attachment relationships with their social group [12,58]. Attachment figures are usually parents, but may also be siblings, grandparents, or group. Unlike most previous studies that focused on separation from parents [9], this study focused on the influence of departure from school and schoolmates, which is particularly relevant to the epidemic situation. For college students attached to their school or classmates, school-closure is a kind of separation experience, which may be different from their experience when they leave home. Considering the relatively new separation (separation from school) caused by the outbreak of COVID-19, our findings suggest that separation from school was positively related to college students’ perceived stress during home-schooling.

Your comment:

Limitation

The way the authors reported the procedure of the data collection did not reflect a cross-sectional design. Hence, it will make readers doubt the authenticity/validity of this study.

Our response:

Thank you very much for your advice. We revised this point in the revised manuscript. Although we used a time-lagged design to collect data at different times, future research can conduct the experimental design or utilize the longitudinal data to ensure the conclusion reflects causation.

Please see Page 18 Line 445- Page 18 Line 458:

Limitations

Despite the potential contribution that the present study makes to the mental health field, limitations of the study should be noted. First, a potential limitation is that all measures came from the same source, raising the potential for same-source measurement biases. However, we used a variety of means to reduce this issue, including varying our response scales and separating our measures in time. Further, as we were interested in how college students have dealt with the pandemic over time, focusing on self-reported experiences was appropriate. Another potential limitation of our study is concerned with causality. Hence, future research should conduct the experimental design or utilize the longitudinal data to ensure the conclusion reflects causation. Finally, our research reflects only the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic for college students, and much work is needed to gain a complete understanding of the implications of this crisis for students. Future research could consider how individual factors, such as self-concept, and contextual factors, such as social support, may influence college students’ response to perceived stress. Moreover, research focused on within-person fluctuations of perceived stress during this time would also be instructive, as there is no doubt that individuals have experienced considerable variability on a daily basis during the pandemic.

Attachment

Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.DOCX

Decision Letter 1

Chung-Ying Lin

25 Jan 2021

College students’ stress and health in the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion

PONE-D-20-32875R1

Dear Dr. Yang,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice for payment will follow shortly after the formal acceptance. To ensure an efficient process, please log into Editorial Manager at http://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/, click the 'Update My Information' link at the top of the page, and double check that your user information is up-to-date. If you have any billing related questions, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Chung-Ying Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Dear authors, 

Thank you for addressing the reviewer's comments. There is only on minor issue remains and I believe that you can deal with it during the proof stage.

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The authors have comprehensively revised the manuscript to my satisfaction. A minor comment though.

Authors should make sure that all p-values are exact (e.g., p=.032) than stating it as "p<.05".

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.

Reviewer #1: No

Acceptance letter

Chung-Ying Lin

1 Feb 2021

PONE-D-20-32875R1

College students’ stress and health in the COVID-19 pandemic: the role of academic workload, separation from school, and fears of contagion

Dear Dr. Yang:

I'm pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been deemed suitable for publication in PLOS ONE. Congratulations! Your manuscript is now with our production department.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please let them know about your upcoming paper now to help maximize its impact. If they'll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team within the next 48 hours. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information please contact onepress@plos.org.

If we can help with anything else, please email us at plosone@plos.org.

Thank you for submitting your work to PLOS ONE and supporting open access.

Kind regards,

PLOS ONE Editorial Office Staff

on behalf of

Dr. Chung-Ying Lin

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Associated Data

    This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

    Supplementary Materials

    S1 Appendix

    (DOCX)

    S1 Data. Anonymized data.

    (XLSX)

    S1 File. Ethical approval.

    (PDF)

    Attachment

    Submitted filename: Response to Reviewers.DOCX

    Data Availability Statement

    All relevant data are within the manuscript and its Supporting Information files. In addition, all data are available form the OSF database. The link is https://osf.io/ajfhw/ and the DOI is 10.17605/OSF.IO/AJFHW.


    Articles from PLoS ONE are provided here courtesy of PLOS

    RESOURCES