Loading [MathJax]/jax/output/SVG/jax.js
Research article Topical Sections

Psychosocial risk factors associated with social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms during COVID-19

  • Received: 23 August 2022 Revised: 23 December 2022 Accepted: 11 January 2023 Published: 07 February 2023
  • The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted society and negatively impacted mental health. Various psychosocial risk factors have been exacerbated during the pandemic, leading to the worsening of psychological distress. Specifically, a need for structure, loneliness, concerns about body image and social media use are risk factors previously implicated in poor mental health. The current study examines how these risk factors are associated with mental health outcomes (i.e., social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms) during the COVID-19 pandemic (January–March 2021). A total of 239 participants were recruited (average age = 24.74, 79% female, 68% White). The results revealed that a need for structure, loneliness and social media use were positively associated with social anxiety. In addition, loneliness, negative concerns about body image and social media use were significantly related to disordered eating and depressive symptoms. Lastly, when examined all together, the overall model for risk factors predicting mental health outcomes was significant: Wilks' Λ = 0.464, F(12, 608.814) = 17.081, p < 0.001. Loneliness and social media use were consistently associated with all psychological symptoms. These results emphasize the need for interventions for social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms that encourage structured daily activities, social connection, positive perception of oneself and mindful social media use.

    Citation: Carlee Bellapigna, Zornitsa Kalibatseva. Psychosocial risk factors associated with social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms during COVID-19[J]. AIMS Public Health, 2023, 10(1): 18-34. doi: 10.3934/publichealth.2023003

    Related Papers:

    [1] Wenxue Huang, Yuanyi Pan . On Balancing between Optimal and Proportional categorical predictions. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(1): 129-137. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016.1.129
    [2] Dongyang Yang, Wei Xu . Statistical modeling on human microbiome sequencing data. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2019, 4(1): 1-12. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2019001
    [3] Wenxue Huang, Xiaofeng Li, Yuanyi Pan . Increase statistical reliability without losing predictive power by merging classes and adding variables. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 341-348. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016014
    [4] Jianguo Dai, Wenxue Huang, Yuanyi Pan . A category-based probabilistic approach to feature selection. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2018, 3(1): 14-21. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017020
    [5] Amanda Working, Mohammed Alqawba, Norou Diawara, Ling Li . TIME DEPENDENT ATTRIBUTE-LEVEL BEST WORST DISCRETE CHOICE MODELLING. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2018, 3(1): 55-72. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2018010
    [6] Xiaoxiao Yuan, Jing Liu, Xingxing Hao . A moving block sequence-based evolutionary algorithm for resource investment project scheduling problems. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 39-58. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017007
    [7] Yaguang Huangfu, Guanqing Liang, Jiannong Cao . MatrixMap: Programming abstraction and implementation of matrix computation for big data analytics. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(4): 349-376. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016015
    [8] Tao Wu, Yu Lei, Jiao Shi, Maoguo Gong . An evolutionary multiobjective method for low-rank and sparse matrix decomposition. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2017, 2(1): 23-37. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2017006
    [9] Wenxue Huang, Qitian Qiu . Forward Supervised Discretization for Multivariate with Categorical Responses. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2016, 1(2): 217-225. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2016005
    [10] Yiwen Tao, Zhenqiang Zhang, Bengbeng Wang, Jingli Ren . Motality prediction of ICU rheumatic heart disease with imbalanced data based on machine learning. Big Data and Information Analytics, 2024, 8(0): 43-64. doi: 10.3934/bdia.2024003
  • The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted society and negatively impacted mental health. Various psychosocial risk factors have been exacerbated during the pandemic, leading to the worsening of psychological distress. Specifically, a need for structure, loneliness, concerns about body image and social media use are risk factors previously implicated in poor mental health. The current study examines how these risk factors are associated with mental health outcomes (i.e., social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms) during the COVID-19 pandemic (January–March 2021). A total of 239 participants were recruited (average age = 24.74, 79% female, 68% White). The results revealed that a need for structure, loneliness and social media use were positively associated with social anxiety. In addition, loneliness, negative concerns about body image and social media use were significantly related to disordered eating and depressive symptoms. Lastly, when examined all together, the overall model for risk factors predicting mental health outcomes was significant: Wilks' Λ = 0.464, F(12, 608.814) = 17.081, p < 0.001. Loneliness and social media use were consistently associated with all psychological symptoms. These results emphasize the need for interventions for social anxiety, depressive and disordered eating symptoms that encourage structured daily activities, social connection, positive perception of oneself and mindful social media use.



    1. Introduction

    Multi-nominal data are common in scientific and engineering research such as biomedical research, customer behavior analysis, network analysis, search engine marketing optimization, web mining etc. When the response variable has more than two levels, the principle of mode-based or distribution-based proportional prediction can be used to construct nonparametric nominal association measure. For example, Goodman and Kruskal [3,4] and others proposed some local-to-global association measures towards optimal predictions. Both Monte Carlo and discrete Markov chain methods are conceptually based on the proportional associations. The association matrix, association vector and association measure were proposed by the thought of proportional associations in [9]. If there is no ordering to the response variable's categories, or the ordering is not of interest, they will be regarded as nominal in the proportional prediction model and the other association statistics.

    But in reality, different categories in the same response variable often are of different values, sometimes much different. When selecting a model or selecting explanatory variables, we want to choose the ones that can enhance the total revenue, not just the accuracy rate. Similarly, when the explanatory variables with cost weight vector, they should be considered in the model too. The association measure in [9], ωY|X, doesn't consider the revenue weight vector in the response variable, nor the cost weight in the explanatory variables, which may lead to less profit in total. Thus certain adjustments must be made for a better decisionning.

    To implement the previous adjustments, we need the following assumptions:

    X and Y are both multi-categorical variables where X is the explanatory variable with domain {1,2,...,α} and Y is the response variable with domain {1,2,...,β} respectively;

    the amount of data collected in this article is large enough to represent the real distribution;

    the model in the article mainly is based on the proportional prediction;

    the relationship between X and Y is asymmetric;

    It needs to be addressed that the second assumption is probably not always the case. The law of large number suggests that the larger the sample size is, the closer the expected value of a distribution is to the real value. The study of this subject has been conducted for hundreds of years including how large the sample size is enough to simulate the real distribution. Yet it is not the major subject of this article. The purpose of this assumption is nothing but a simplification to a more complicated discussion.

    The article is organized as follows. Section 2 discusses the adjustment to the association measure when the response variable has a revenue weight; section 3 considers the case where both the explanatory and the response variable have weights; how the adjusted measure changes the existing feature selection framework is presented in section 4. Conclusion and future works will be briefly discussed in the last section.


    2. Response variable with revenue weight vector

    Let's first recall the association matrix {γs,t(Y|X)} and the association measure ωY|X and τY|X.

    γs,t(Y|X)=E(p(Y=s|X)p(Y=t|X))p(Y=s)=αi=1p(X=i|Y=s)p(Y=t|X=i);s,t=1,2,..,βτY|X=ωY|XEp(Y)1Ep(Y)ωY|X=EX(EY(p(Y|X)))=βs=1αi=1p(Y=s|X=i)2p(X=i)=βs=1γssp(Y=s) (1)

    γst(Y|X) is the (s,t)-entry of the association matrix γ(Y|X) representing the probability of assigning or predicting Y=t while the true value is in fact Y=s. Given a representative train set, the diagonal entries, γss, are the expected accuracy rates while the off-diagonal entries of each row are the expected first type error rates. ωY|X is the association measure from the explanatory variable X to the response variable Y without a standardization. Further discussions to these metrics can be found in [9].

    Our discussion begins with only one response variable with revenue weight and one explanatory variable without cost weight. Let R=(r1,r2,...,rβ) to be the revenue weight vector where rs is the possible revenue for Y=s. A model with highest revenue in total is then the ideal solution in reality, not just a model with highest accuracy. Therefore comes the extended form of ωY|X with weight in Y as in 2:

    Definition 2.1.

    ˆωY|X=βs=1αi=1p(Y=s|X=i)2rsp(X=i)=βs=1γssp(Y=s)rsrs>0,s=1,2,3...,β (2)

    Please note that ωY|X is equivalent to τY|X for given X and Y in a given data set. Thus the statistics of τY|X will not be discussed in this article.

    It is easy to see that ˆωY|X is the expected total revenue for correctly predicting Y. Therefore one explanatory variable X1 with ˆωY|X1 is preferred than another X2 if ˆωY|X1ˆωY|X2. It is worth mentioning that ˆωY|X is asymmetric, i.e., ˆωY|XˆωX|Y and that ωY|X=ˆωY|X if r1=r2=...=rβ=1.

    Example.Consider a simulated data motivated by a real situation. Suppose that variable Y is the response variable indicating the different computer brands that the customers bought; X1, as one explanatory variable, shows the customers' career and X2, as another explanatory variable, tells the customers' age group. We want to find a better explanatory variable to generate higher revenue by correctly predicting the purchased computer's brand. We further assume that X1 and X2 both contain 5 categories, Y has 4 brands and the total number of rows is 9150. The contingency table is presented in 1.

    Table 1. Contingency tables:X1 vs Y and X2 vs Y.
    X1|Y y1 y2 y3 y4 X2|Y y1 y2 y3 y4
    x11 1000 100 500 400 x21 500 300 200 1500
    x12 200 1500 500 300 x22 500 400 400 50
    x13 400 50 500 500 x23 500 500 300 700
    x14 300 700 500 400 x24 500 400 1000 100
    x15 200 500 400 200 x25 200 400 500 200
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Let us first consider the association matrix {γY|X}. Predicting Y with the information of X1, or X2 is given by the association matrix γ(Y|X1), or γ(Y|X2) as in Table 2.

    Table 2. Association matrices:X1 vs Y and X2 vs Y.
    Y|ˆY ^y1|X1 ^y2|X1 ^y3|X1 ^y4|X1 Y|ˆY ^y1|X2 ^y2|X2 ^y3|X2 ^y4X2
    y1 0.34 0.18 0.27 0.22 y1 0.26 0.22 0.27 0.25
    y2 0.13 0.48 0.24 0.15 y2 0.25 0.24 0.29 0.23
    y3 0.24 0.28 0.27 0.21 y3 0.25 0.24 0.36 0.15
    y4 0.25 0.25 0.28 0.22 y4 0.22 0.18 0.14 0.46
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Please note that Y contains the true values while ˆY is the guessed one. One can see from this table that the accuracy rate of predicting y1 and y2 by X1 on the left are larger than that on the right. The cases of y3 and y4, on the other hand, are opposite.

    The correct prediction contingency tables of X1 and Y, denoted as W1, plus that of X2 and Y, denoted as W2, can be simulated through Monte Carlo simulation as in Table 3.

    Table 3. Contingency table for correct predictions: W1 and W2.
    X1|Y y1 y2 y3 y4 X2|Y y1 y2 y3 y4
    x11 471 6 121 83 x21 98 34 19 926
    x12 101 746 159 107 x22 177 114 113 1
    x13 130 1 167 157 x23 114 124 42 256
    x14 44 243 145 85 x24 109 81 489 6
    x15 21 210 114 32 x25 36 119 206 28
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The total number of the correct predictions by X1 is 3142 while it is 3092 by X2, meaning the model with X1 is better than X2 in terms of accurate prediction. But it maybe not the case if each target class has different revenues. Assuming the revenue weight vector of Y is R=(1,1,2,2), we have the association measure of ωY|X, and ˆωY|X as in Table 4:

    Table 4. Association measures: ωY|X, and ˆωY|X.
    X ωY|X ˆωY|X total revenue average revenue
    X1 0.3406 0.456 4313 0.4714
    X2 0.3391 0.564 5178 0.5659
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Given that revenue=i,sWi,skrs,i=1,2,...,α,s=1,2,...,β,k=1,2, we have the revenue for W1 as 4313, and that for W2 as 5178. Divide the revenue by the total sample size, 9150, we can obtain 0.4714 and 0.5659 respectively. Contrasting these to ˆωY|X1 and ˆωY|X2 above, we believe that they are similar, which means then ˆωY|X is truly the expected revenue.

    In summary, it is possible for an explanatory variable X with bigger ˆωY|X, i.e, the larger revenue, but with smaller ωY|X, i.e., the smaller association. When the total revenue is of the interest, it should be the better variable to be selected, not the one with larger association.


    3. Explanatory variable with cost weight and response variable with revenue weight

    Let us further discuss the case with cost weight vector in predictors in addition to the revenue weight vector in the dependent variable. The goal is to find a predictor with bigger profit in total. We hence define the new association measure as in 3.

    Definition 3.1.

    ˉωY|X=αi=1βs=1p(Y=s|X=i)2rscip(X=i) (3)

    ci>0,i=1,2,3,...,α, and rs>0,s=1,2,...,β.

    ci indicates the cost weight of the ith category in the predictor and rs means the same as in the previous section. ˉωY|X is then the expected ratio of revenue and cost, namely RoI. Thus a larger ˉωY|X means a bigger profit in total. A better variable to be selected then is the one with bigger ˉωY|X. We can see that ˉωY|X is an asymmetric measure, meaning ˉωY|XˉωY|X. When c1=c2=...=cα=1, Equation 3 is exactly Equation 2; when c1=c2=...=cα=1 and r1=r2=...=rβ=1, equation 3 becomes the original equation 1.

    Example. We first continue the example in the previous section with new cost weight vectors for X1 and X2 respectively. Assuming C1=(0.5,0.4,0.3,0.2,0.1), C2=(0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5) and R=(1,1,1,1), we have the associations in Table 5.

    Table 5. Association with/without cost vectors: X1 and X2.
    X ωY|X ˆωY|X ˉωY|X total profit average profit
    X1 0.3406 0.3406 1.3057 12016.17 1.3132
    X2 0.3391 0.3391 1.8546 17072.17 1.8658
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    By profit=i,sWi,skrsCki,i=1,2,..,α;s=1,2,..,β and k=1,2 where Wk is the corresponding prediction contingency table, we have the profit for X1 as 12016.17 and that of X2 as 17072.17. When both divided by the total sample size 9150, they change to 1.3132 and 1.8658, similar to ˉω(Y|X1) and ˉω(Y|X2). It indicates that ˉωY|X is the expected RoI. In this example, X2 is the better variable given the cost and the revenue vectors are of interest.

    We then investigate how the change of cost weight affect the result. Suppose the new weight vectors are: R=(1,1,1,1), C1=(0.1,0.2,0.3,0.4,0.5) and C2=(0.5,0.4,0.3,0.2,0.1), we have the new associations in Table 6.

    Table 6. Association with/without new cost vectors: X1 and X2.
    X ωY|X ˆωY|X ˉωY|X total profit average profit
    X1 0.3406 0.3406 1.7420 15938.17 1.7419
    X2 0.3391 0.3391 1.3424 12268.17 1.3408
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    Hence ˉωY|X1>ˉωY|X2, on the contrary to the example with the old weight vectors. Thus the right amount of weight is critical to define the better variable regarding the profit in total.


    4. The impact on feature selection

    By the updated association defined in the previous section, we present the feature selection result in this section to a given data set S with explanatory categorical variables V1,V2,..,Vn and a response variable Y. The feature selection steps can be found in [9].

    At first, consider a synthetic data set simulating the contribution factors to the sales of certain commodity. In general, lots of factors could contribute differently to the commodity sales: age, career, time, income, personal preference, credit, etc. Each factor could have different cost vectors, each class in a variable could have different cost as well. For example, collecting income information might be more difficult than to know the customer's career; determining a dinner waitress' purchase preference is easier than that of a high income lawyer. Therefore we just assume that there are four potential predictors, V1,V2,V3,V4 within the data set with a sample size of 10000 and get a feature selection result by monte carlo simulation in Table 7.

    Table 7. Simulated feature selection: one variable.
    X |Dmn(X)| ωY|X ˉωY|X total profit average profit
    V1 7 0.3906 3.5381 35390 3.5390
    V2 4 0.3882 3.8433 38771 3.8771
    V3 4 0.3250 4.8986 48678 4.8678
    V4 8 0.3274 3.7050 36889 3.6889
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    The first variable to be selected is V1 using ωY|X as the criteria according to [9]. But it is V3 that needs to be selected as previously discussed if the total profit is of interest. Further we assume that the two variable combinations satisfy the numbers in Table 8 by, again, monte carlo simulation.

    Table 8. Simulated feature selection: two variables.
    X1,X2 |Dmn(X1,X2)| ωY|(X1,X2) ˉωY|(X1,X2) total profit average profit
    V1,V2 28 0.4367 1.8682 18971 1.8971
    V1,V3 28 0.4025 2.1106 20746 2.0746
    V1,V4 56 0.4055 1.8055 17915 1.7915
    V3,V2 16 0.4055 2.3585 24404 2.4404
    V3,V4 32 0.3385 2.0145 19903 1.9903
     | Show Table
    DownLoad: CSV

    As we can see, all ωY|(X1,X2)ωY|X1, but it is not case for ˉωY|(X1,X2) since the cost gets larger with two variables thus the profit drops down. As in one variable scenario, the better two variable combination with respect to ωY|(X1,X2) is (V1,V2) while ˉωY|(X1,X2) suggests (V3, V2) is the better choice.

    In summary, the updated association with cost and revenue vector not only changes the feature selection result by different profit expectations, it also reflects a practical reality that collecting information for more variables costs more thus reduces the overall profit, meaning more variables is not necessarily better on a Return-Over-Invest basis.


    5. Conclusions and remarks

    We propose a new metrics, ¯ωY|X in this article to improve the proportional prediction based association measure, ωY|X, to analyze the cost and revenue factors in the categorical data. It provides a description to the global-to-global association with practical RoI concerns, especially in a case where response variables are multi-categorical.

    The presented framework can also be applied to high dimensional cases as in national survey, misclassification costs, association matrix and association vector [9]. It should be more helpful to identify the predictors' quality with various response variables.

    Given the distinct character of this new statistics, we believe it brings us more opportunities to further studies of finding the better decision for categorical data. We are currently investigating the asymptotic properties of the proposed measures and it also can be extended to symmetrical situation. Of course, the synthetical nature of the experiments in this article brings also the question of how it affects a real data set/application. It is also arguable that the improvements introduced by the new measures probably come from the randomness. Thus we can use k-fold cross-validation method to better support our argument in the future.



    Acknowledgments



    This research project was supported by the Research Experience for Undergraduates Award from Stockton University.

    Conflict of interest



    All authors declare no conflict of interest regarding the publication of this research.

    [1] Haliwa I, Wilson J, Lee J, et al. (2021) Predictors of change in mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Affect Disord 291: 331-337. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.05.045
    [2] Ernst M, Niederer D, Werner AM, et al. (2022) Loneliness before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Am Psychol 77: 660-677. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0001005
    [3] Palgi Y, Shrira A, Ring L, et al. (2020) The loneliness pandemic: Loneliness and other concomitants of depression, anxiety and their comorbidity during the COVID-19 outbreak. J Affect Disord 275: 109-111. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.036
    [4] McQuaid RJ, Cox SM, Ogunlana A, et al. (2021) The burden of loneliness: Implications of the social determinants of health during COVID-19. Psychiatry Res 296: 113648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113648
    [5] Choukas-Bradley S, Maheux AJ, Roberts SR, et al. (2022) Picture perfect during a pandemic? Body image concerns and depressive symptoms in US adolescent girls during the COVID-19 lockdown. J Child Media 16: 481-492. https://doi.org/10.1080/17482798.2022.2039255
    [6] Nutley SK, Falise AM, Henderson R, et al. (2021) Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on disordered eating behavior: Qualitative analysis of social media posts. JMIR Ment Health 8: e26011. https://doi.org/10.2196/26011
    [7] Lee Y, Jeon YJ, Kang S, et al. (2022) Social media use and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic in young adults: a meta-analysis of 14 cross-sectional studies. BMC Public Health 22: 995. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-022-13409-0
    [8] Safieh J, Broughan J, McCombe G, et al. (2022) Interventions to optimise mental health outcomes during the COVID-19 pandemic: A scoping review. Int J Ment Health Addict 20: 2934-2955. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11469-021-00558-3
    [9] Sousa GMD, Tavares VDDO, de Meiroz Grilo MLP, et al. (2021) Mental health in COVID-19 pandemic: a meta-review of prevalence meta-analyses. Front Psychol 12: 703838. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.703838
    [10] Prokopčáková A (2015) Personal need for structure, anxiety, self-efficacy and optimism. Stud Psychol 57: 147-162. https://doi.org/10.21909/sp.2015.02.690
    [11] Cacioppo S, Grippo US, London S, et al. (2015) Loneliness: Clinical import and interventions. Perspect Psychol Sci 10: 238-249. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691615570616
    [12] Manaf NA, Saravanan C, Zuhrah B (2016) The prevalence and inter-relationship of negative body image perception, depression and susceptibility to eating disorders among female medical undergraduate students. J Clin Diagn Res 10: VC01-VC04. https://doi.org/10.7860/JCDR/2016/16678.7341
    [13] Twenge JM (2019) More time on technology, less happiness? Associations between digital-media use and psychological well-being. Curr Dir Psychol Sci 28: 372-379. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419838244
    [14] Adams GC, Balbuena L, Meng X, et al. (2016) When social anxiety and depression go together: A population study of comorbidity and associated consequences. J Affect Disord 206: 48-54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2016.07.031
    [15] Garcia SC, Mikhail ME, Keel PK, et al. (2020) Increased rates of eating disorders and their symptoms in women with major depressive disorder and anxiety disorders. Int J Eat Disord 53: 1844-1854. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23366
    [16] Bueno-Notivol J, Gracia-García P, Olaya B, et al. (2021) Prevalence of depression during the COVID-19 outbreak: A meta-analysis of community-based studies. Int J Clin Health Psychol 21: 100196-100211. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijchp.2020.07.007
    [17] Li Y, Zhao J, Ma Z, et al. (2021) Mental health among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic in China: A 2-wave longitudinal survey. J Affect Disord 281: 597-604. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2020.11.109
    [18] National Institute of Mental HealthDepression (2018). Available from: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/depression.
    [19] American Psychiatric AssociationDiagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.) (2013). https://doi.org/10.1176/appi.books.9780890425596
    [20] Hawes MT, Szenczy AK, Klein DN, et al. (2021) Increases in depression and anxiety symptoms in adolescents and young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychol Med 52: 3222-3230. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0033291720005358
    [21] Abebe DS, Torgersen L, Lien L, et al. (2014) Predictors of disordered eating in adolescence and young adulthood: A population-based, longitudinal study of females and males in Norway. Int J Behav Dev 38: 128-138. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025413514871
    [22] Ramalho SM, Trovisqueira A, de Lourdes M, et al. (2021) The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on disordered eating behaviors: The mediation role of psychological distress. Eat Weight Disord 27: 179-188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40519-021-01128-1
    [23] McLean CP, Utpala R, Sharp G (2022) The impacts of COVID-19 on eating disorders and disordered eating: A mixed studies systematic review and implications. Front Psychol 13: 926709. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.926709
    [24] Fernández-Aranda F, Casas M, Claes L, et al. (2020) COVID-19 and implications for eating disorders. Eur Eat Disord Rev 28: 239-245. https://doi.org/10.1002/erv.2738
    [25] Arad G, Shamai-Leshem D, Bar-Haim Y (2021) Social distancing during a COVID-19 lockdown contributes to the maintenance of social anxiety: a natural experiment. Cognit Ther Res 45: 708-714. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-021-10231-7
    [26] National Institute of Mental HealthAnxiety disorders (2018). Available from: https://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/topics/anxiety-disorders.
    [27] Beard C, Amir N (2009) Interpretation in social anxiety: When meaning precedes ambiguity. Cognit Ther Res 33: 406-415. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10608-009-9235-0
    [28] Olivera-La Rosa A, Chuquichambi EG, Ingram GP (2020) Keep your (social) distance: Pathogen concerns and social perception in the time of COVID-19. Pers Individ Dif 166: 110200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2020.110200
    [29] Hwang TJ, Rabheru K, Peisah C, et al. (2020) Loneliness and social isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int Psychogeriatr 32: 1217-1220. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1041610220000988
    [30] Neuberg SL, Newsom J T (1993) Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 65: 113-131. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113
    [31] Giuntella O, Hyde K, Saccardo S, et al. (2021) Lifestyle and mental health disruptions during COVID-19. Proc Natl Acad Sci 118: e2016632118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2016632118
    [32] Rodgers RF, Lombardo C, Cerolini S, et al. (2020) The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on eating disorder risk and symptoms. Int J Eat Disord 53: 1166-1170. https://doi.org/10.1002/eat.23318
    [33] Lim MH, Rodebaugh TL, Zyphur MJ, et al. (2016) Loneliness over time: The crucial role of social anxiety. J Abnorm Psychol 125: 620-630. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000162
    [34] Van der Velden PG, Hyland P, Contino C, et al. (2021) Anxiety and depression symptoms, the recovery from symptoms, and loneliness before and after the COVID-19 outbreak among the general population: Findings from a Dutch population-based longitudinal study. PloS One 16: e0245057. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0245057
    [35] Aderka IM, Gutner CA, Lazarov A, et al. (2013) Body image in social anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and panic disorder. Body Image 11: 51-56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2013.09.002
    [36] Grogan S (2006) Body Image and Health: Contemporary Perspectives. J Health Psychol 11: 523-530. https://doi.org/10.1177/1359105306065013
    [37] Swami S, Tran US, Stieger S, et al. (2015) Associations between women's body image and happiness: Results of the youbeauty.com body image survey (YBIS). J Happiness Stud 16: 705-718. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10902-014-9530-7
    [38] Bucchianeri MM, Arikian AJ, Hannan PJ, et al. (2013) Body dissatisfaction from adolescence to young adulthood: Findings from a 10-year longitudinal study. Body Image 10: 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bodyim.2012.09.001
    [39] Dakanalis A, Carrà G, Calogero R, et al. (2015) The developmental effects of media-ideal internalization and self-objectification processes on adolescents' negative body-feelings, dietary restraint, and binge eating. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry 24: 997-1010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00787-014-0649-1
    [40] Sherman LE, Greenfield PM, Hernandez LM, et al. (2017) Peer influence via Instagram: Effects on brain and behavior in adolescence and young adulthood. Child Dev 89: 37-47. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12838
    [41] Thompson MM, Naccarato ME, Parker KCH, et al. (2001) The Personal Need for Structure (PNS) and Personal Fear of Invalidity (PFI) scales: Historical perspectives, present applications and future directions. Cognitive Social Psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum 19-39.
    [42] Hays RD, DiMatteo MR (1987) A short-form measure of loneliness. J Pers Assess 51: 69-81. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327752jpa5101_6
    [43] Carver CS, Pozo-Kaderman C, Price AA, et al. (1998) Concern about aspects of body image and adjustment to early stage breast cancer. J Psychosom Med 60: 168-174. https://doi.org/10.1097/00006842-199803000-00010
    [44] Olufadi Y (2016) Social networking time use scale (SONTUS): A new instrument for measuring the time spent on the social networking sites. Telemat Inform 33: 452-471. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2015.11.002
    [45] Garner DM, Olmsted MP, Bohr Y, et al. (1982) The eating attitudes test: Psychometric features and clinical correlates. Psychol Med 12: 871-878. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0033291700049163
    [46] Connor K, Davidson J, Churchill L, et al. (2000) Psychometric properties of the Social Phobia Inventory (SPIN): New self-rating scale. Br J Psychiatry 176: 379-386. https://doi.org/10.1192/bjp.176.4.379
    [47] Kroenke K, Spitzer R, Williams J (2001) The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J Gen Intern Med 16: 606-613. https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x
    [48] Cooper M, Reilly EE, Siegel JA, et al. (2020) Eating disorders during the COVID-19 pandemic and quarantine: An overview of risks and recommendations for treatment and early interventions. Eat Disord 30: 54-76. https://doi.org/10.1080/10640266.2020.1790271
    [49] Haines J, Kleinman KP, Rifas-Shiman SL, et al. (2010) Examination of shared risk and protective factors for overweight and disordered eating among adolescents. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 164: 336-343. https://doi.org/10.1001/archpediatrics.2010.19
    [50] Ge L, Yap CW, Ong R, et al. (2017) Social isolation, loneliness and their relationships with depressive symptoms: A population-based study. PloS One 12: e0182145. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182145
    [51] Center for Disease Control and PreventionCoping with stress (2020). Available from: https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealth/stress-coping/cope-with-stress/index.html.
  • Reader Comments
  • © 2023 the Author(s), licensee AIMS Press. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0)
通讯作者: 陈斌, bchen63@163.com
  • 1. 

    沈阳化工大学材料科学与工程学院 沈阳 110142

  1. 本站搜索
  2. 百度学术搜索
  3. 万方数据库搜索
  4. CNKI搜索

Metrics

Article views(2923) PDF downloads(203) Cited by(4)

Article outline

Figures and Tables

Figures(1)  /  Tables(3)

Other Articles By Authors

/

DownLoad:  Full-Size Img  PowerPoint
Return
Return

Catalog