(1) Background: The aim of the study was to investigate how the COVID-19 pandemic impacted the mental health and quality of life of male and female physical therapy students at the European University of Madrid. (2) Methods: A cross-sectional online survey was conducted including a range of tests capturing different domains: 36-item Short Form Health Survey, six-item state version of the State–Trait Anxiety Inventory, Acceptance and Action Questionnaire, Three Items Loneliness Scale, four-item version of the Perceived Stress Scale, Beck Depression Inventory revised version, and Sleep Quality Numeric Rating Scale. (3) Results: A total of 151 students completed the study, consisting of 78 females and 73 males. Gender differences were observed on most of the domains evaluated. Female participants showed worse levels of general health perception, quality of life, depression symptoms, anxiety, stress, experiential avoidance and psychological inflexibility, sleep quality and loneliness compared to male physical therapy students. (4) Conclusions: The results of this study support the need of psychological interventions as preventive programs in situations such as COVID-19 pandemic. The aims of this study comprise of improving knowledge, awareness, and self-coping strategies or other psychological domains oriented to mitigate the effects of COVID-19 on mental health and health-related quality of life in university students, especially among female ones.

/pdf/gender-differences-in-psychological-stress-factors-of-1mfy6bg9.pdf

Gender Differences in Psychological Stress Factors of Physical Therapy Degree Students in the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: Lifestyle Medicine (LM) aims to address six main behavioral domains: diet/nutrition, substance use (SU), physical activity (PA), social relationships, stress management, and sleep. Digital Health Interventions (DHIs) have been used to improve these domains. However, there is no consensus on how to measure lifestyle and its intermediate outcomes aside from measuring each behavior separately. We aimed to describe (1) the most frequent lifestyle domains addressed by DHIs, (2) the most frequent outcomes used to measure lifestyle changes, and (3) the most frequent DHI delivery methods. Methods: We followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-ScR) Extension for Scoping Reviews. A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, EMBASE, and Web of Science for publications since 2010. We included systematic reviews and meta-analyses of clinical trials using DHI to promote health, behavioral, or lifestyle change. Results: Overall, 954 records were identified, and 72 systematic reviews were included. Of those, 35 conducted meta-analyses, 58 addressed diet/nutrition, and 60 focused on PA. Only one systematic review evaluated all six lifestyle domains simultaneously; 1 systematic review evaluated five lifestyle domains; 5 systematic reviews evaluated 4 lifestyle domains; 14 systematic reviews evaluated 3 lifestyle domains; and the remaining 52 systematic reviews evaluated only one or two domains. The most frequently evaluated domains were diet/nutrition and PA. The most frequent DHI delivery methods were smartphone apps and websites. Discussion: The concept of lifestyle is still unclear and fragmented, making it hard to evaluate the complex interconnections of unhealthy behaviors, and their impact on health. Clarifying this concept, refining its operationalization, and defining the reporting guidelines should be considered as the current research priorities. DHIs have the potential to improve lifestyle at primary, secondary, and tertiary levels of prevention—but most of them are targeting clinical populations. Although important advances have been made to evaluate DHIs, some of their characteristics, such as the rate at which they become obsolete, will require innovative research designs to evaluate long-term outcomes in health.

/pdf/what-are-we-measuring-when-we-evaluate-digital-interventions-3hejwtij.pdf

What Are We Measuring When We Evaluate Digital Interventions for Improving Lifestyle? A Scoping Meta-Review

The 2019 coronavirus pandemic forced the shift to distance education aggravating mental and physical vulnerabilities of undergraduate students, including sleep. This review aims to describe sleep problem rates and prevalence, sleep pattern disruption, sleep duration, sleep quality, insomnia symptoms, psychological and socio-economic factors affecting sleep of undergraduates in 22 countries. A systematic search for articles published from 2020 to 2021 using 'COVID-19,' 'Coronavirus,' 'Pandemic,' 'Sleep,' 'Mental Health,' and 'Students' from PubMed, Scopus, and Cochrane yielded 2550 articles, where 72 were included. Selection criteria were: English full-text available articles, undergraduates and not postgraduates, reported sleep outcomes, and participants not from allied health courses. Risk of bias was assessed using various Joanna Briggs Institute checklists and outcomes were descriptively synthesized. Prevalence of sleep problems was notable, while longitudinal studies showed increased rates. There was significantly increased sleep duration, and sleep pattern disruption during lockdowns. Several psychological, behavioural, environmental, demographic, and socio-economic factors were found to be associated with sleep changes. These highlight the pandemic's impact on sleep of undergraduate students and reveal opportunities for institutions to intervene with policies and programs to promote the well-being of undergraduates. Limitations include recall bias and underrepresentation of other countries. This study is self-funded with registration number RGAO-2021-0071. 

Impact of COVID‐19 pandemic on sleep of undergraduate students: A systematic literature review

Screening of substance use and mental health problems among Spanish medical students: A multicenter study.

The aim of this study was to validate the Short Multidimensional Inventory Lifestyle Evaluation-Confinement (SMILE-C) in a Malaysian context. The SMILE-C, which is a respondent-generated instrument, was used to ask participants questions on their lifestyle during the COVID-19 pandemic. The indices of seven sub-scores were then calculated. A total of 121 university staff members completed the Malay version of the SMILE-C as well as instruments for measuring well-being, family life satisfaction, mindfulness and awareness, work engagement, and quality of life. The Cronbach's alpha values and Pearson correlation coefficients were satisfactory in this initial validation of the instrument. The SMILE-C showed positive correlations with all the variables being studied. The results supported the criterion-related validity and psychometric properties of the Malay version of the SMILE-C as an instrument for assessing lifestyle changes during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Criterion Validity and Psychometric Properties of a Malay Version of the Short Multidimensional Inventory Lifestyle Evaluation-Confinement (SMILE-C) in a Sample of University Staff with Weight Problems.

Few studies have used a multidimensional approach to describe lifestyle changes among undergraduate students during the COVID-19 pandemic or have included controls. This study aimed to evaluate lifestyle behaviors and mental health of undergraduate students and compare them with an age and sex-matched control group. A cross-sectional web survey using snowball sampling was conducted several months after the beginning of COVID-19 pandemic in Spain. A sample of 221 students was recruited. The main outcome was the total SMILE-C score. Students showed a better SMILE-C score than controls (79.8 + 8.1 vs. 77.2 + 8.3; p < 0.001), although these differences disappeared after controlling for covariates. While groups did not differ in the screenings of depression and alcohol abuse, students reported lower rates of anxiety (28.5% vs. 37.1%; p = 0.042). A lower number of cohabitants, poorer self-perceived health and positive screening for depression and anxiety, or for depression only were independently associated (p < 0.05) with unhealthier lifestyles in both groups. History of mental illness and financial difficulties were predictors of unhealthier lifestyles for students, whereas totally/moderate changes in substance abuse and stress management (p < 0.05) were predictors for the members of the control group. Several months after the pandemic, undergraduate students and other young adults had similar lifestyles.

https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/18/15/8133/pdf

María Giner-Murillo

Papers

Lifestyle in Undergraduate Students and Demographically Matched Controls during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Spain.