The relationship among young adult college students' depression, anxiety, stress, demographics, life satisfaction, and coping styles.

University of Kentucky, College of Nursing, Lexington, USA.
Issues in Mental Health Nursing 03/2012; 33(3):149-56. DOI: 10.3109/01612840.2011.632708
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Recent research indicates that young adult college students experience increased levels of depression, anxiety, and stress. It is less clear what strategies college health care providers might use to assist students in decreasing these mental health concerns. In this paper, we examine the relative importance of coping style, life satisfaction, and selected demographics in predicting undergraduates' depression, anxiety, and stress. A total of 508 full-time undergraduate students aged 18-24 years completed the study measures and a short demographics information questionnaire. Coping strategies and life satisfaction were assessed using the Brief COPE Inventory and an adapted version of the Brief Students' Multidimensional Life Satisfaction Scale. Depression, anxiety, and stress were measured using the Depression Anxiety and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21). Multiple regression analyses were used to examine the relative influence of each of the independent variables on depression, anxiety, and stress. Maladaptive coping was the main predictor of depression, anxiety, and stress. Adaptive coping was not a significant predictor of any of the three outcome variables. Reducing maladaptive coping behaviors may have the most positive impact on reducing depression, anxiety, and stress in this population.

  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Over the past four years, the Franciscan University Counseling Center has reported a 231% increase in yearly visits, as well as a 173% increase in total yearly clients. This trend has been observed at many universities as mental health issues pose significant problems for many college students. The objective of this study was to investigate potential correlates of depression, anxiety, and stress in a sample of college students.Methods The final analyzed sample consisted of 374 undergraduate students between the ages of 18 and 24 attending Franciscan University, Steubenville, Ohio. Subjects completed a survey consisting of demographic questions, a section instructing participants to rate the level of concern associated with challenges pertinent to daily life (e.g. academics, family, sleep), and the 21 question version of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale (DASS21).ResultsThe results indicated that the top three concerns were academic performance, pressure to succeed, and post-graduation plans. Demographically, the most stressed, anxious, and depressed students were transfers, upperclassmen, and those living off-campus.Conclusions With the propensity for mental health issues to hinder the success of college students, it is vital that colleges continually evaluate the mental health of their students and tailor treatment programs to specifically target their needs.
    Journal of Affective Disorders 11/2014; · 3.71 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Purpose: This study was conducted to describe stress, stress coping, and school adaptation according to Myers-Briggs type indicator(MBTI) personality type in freshmen nursing students. Methods: This study was a cross sectional survey and the data was collected from 267 freshmen nursing students by means of self reported questionnaires from March 3 to 30, 2012. Collected data were analyzed on SPSS win 18.0. Results: 16 personality types were all seen in this study participants. There were no significant differences in stress, stress coping, and school adaptation according to 4 functions and 4 temperaments of MBTI. Conclusion: Nursing students show various personality types and we need to understand their diversity and reflect it to a school curriculum or education program development. Further study is required to identify the effects of self-understanding program on stress management and school adaptation.
    The Journal of Korean Academic Society of Nursing Education. 05/2013; 19(2).
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This paper investigates university students’ life satisfaction by measuring six life satisfaction components (family life satisfaction, social life satisfaction, satisfaction with the university experience, satisfaction with oneself, satisfaction with the place of residence, satisfaction with the overall life) among different students’ groups. Life satisfaction is measured using Brief Multi-Dimensional Students’ Life Satisfaction Scale (BMSLSS). A cross-sectional approach was taken to examine differences among identified students’ groups according to: academic performance (by GPA and status of funding), demographic and behavioral characteristics (by gender, body mass index, smoking and alcohol consumption) and features related to physical activity (by weekly time spent in physical activity in hours and group of sport engaged in). Research is conducted among 507 students at the Faculty of Organizational Sciences, University of Belgrade, Serbia. Man Whitney and Kruskal Wallis test were performed for pairwise comparison using Bonferroni correction. The results show statistically significant differences in the following components: satisfaction with family life (within gender group), satisfaction with social life (within sex and smoking groups), satisfaction with the university experience (within sex, smoking, alcohol consumption, GPA and scholarship/funding status groups), satisfaction with oneself (within GPA, financial status, alcohol consumption and type of sport groups), satisfaction with the place of residence (within GPA, scholarship/funding status, time spent in physical activities and body mass index) and satisfaction with the overall life (within gender and alcohol consumption groups). This paper has both theoretical and practical influence on contemporary life satisfaction field of knowledge, particularly in university students’ population.
    Applied Research in Quality of Life 09/2014; 9(3). · 0.74 Impact Factor