BackgroundUniversity students are often perceived to have a privileged position in society and considered immune to ill-health and disability. There is growing evidence that a sizeable proportion experience poor physical health, and that the prevalence of psychological disorders is higher in university students than their community peers. This study examined the physical and mental health issues for first year Australian rural university students and their perception of access to available health and support services.MethodsCross-sectional study design using an online survey form based on the Adolescent Screening Questionnaire modeled on the internationally recognised HEADSS survey tool. The target audience was all first-year undergraduate students enrolled in an on-campus degree program. The response rate was 41% comprising 355 students (244 females, 111 males). Data was analysed using standard statistical techniques including descriptive and inferential statistics; and thematic analysis of the open-ended responses.ResultsThe mean age of the respondents was 20.2 years (SD 4.8). The majority of the students lived in on-campus residential college style accommodation, and a third combined part-time paid work with full-time study. Most students reported being in good physical health. However, on average two health conditions were reported over the past six months, with the most common being fatigue (56%), frequent headaches (26%) and allergies (24%). Mental health problems included anxiety (25%), coping difficulties (19.7%) and diagnosed depression (8%). Most respondents reported adequate access to medical doctors and support services for themselves (82%) and friends (78%). However the qualitative comments highlighted concerns about stigma, privacy and anonymity in seeking counselling.ConclusionsThe present study adds to the limited literature of physical and mental health issues as well as barriers to service utilization by rural university students. It provides useful baseline data for the development of customised support programs at rural campuses. Future research using a longitudinal research design and multi-site studies are recommended to facilitate a deeper understanding of health issues affecting rural university students.

These limitations must be addressed to facilitate the development of effective and appropriately targeted evidence-based public health campaigns, treatment programmes and preventative, early intervention and harm minimization strategies, and to inform cannabis-related policy and legislation.

Objective: Comorbidity between anxiety and cannabis use is common yet the nature of the association between these conditions is not clear. Four theories were assessed, and a fifth hypothesis tested to determine if the misattribution of stress symptomology plays a role in the association between state-anxiety and cannabis.Methods: Three-hundred-sixteen participants ranging in age from 18 to 71 years completed a short online questionnaire asking about their history of cannabis use and symptoms of stress and anxiety.Results: Past and current cannabis users reported higher incidence of lifetime anxiety than participants who had never used cannabis; however, these groups did not differ in state-anxiety, stress, or age of onset of anxiety. State-anxiety and stress were not associated with frequency of cannabis use, but reported use to self-medicate for anxiety was positively associated with all three. Path analyses indicated two different associations between anxiety and cannabis use, pre-existing and high state-anxiety was associated with (i) higher average levels of intoxication and, in turn, acute anxiety responses to cannabis use; (ii) frequency of cannabis use via the mediating effects of stress and self-medication.Conclusion: None of the theories was fully supported by the findings. However, as cannabis users reporting self-medication for anxiety were found to be self-medicating stress symptomology, there was some support for the stress-misattribution hypothesis. With reported self-medication for anxiety being the strongest predictor of frequency of use, it is suggested that researchers, clinicians, and cannabis users pay greater attention to the overlap between stress and anxiety symptomology and the possible misinterpretation of these related but distinct conditions.

Abstract. The Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory (ZTPI; Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999 ) assesses five time-related constructs – Past Negative (PN), Past Positive (PP), Present Fatalistic (PF), Present Hedonistic (PF), and Future (F) – and is one of the most frequently used time measures in the extant literature. Versions of the ZTPI have been translated into a variety of languages, but the psychometric support for ZTPI scores remains contested. We examined the internal consistency, structural validity, and convergent validity of scores on a version of the ZTPI that consisted only of items that specifically referenced time constructs, the ZTPI-TP. Participants consisted of five samples of adolescents and adults from four countries: Australia (653 adults), Slovenia (425 adolescents and adults), the United Kingdom (913 adolescents; 455 adults), and the United States (815 adolescents). Structural validity analyses provided stronger support for ZTPI-TP scores than for ZTPI scores, and convergent validity evidence also provided support for ZTPI-TP scores. However, analyses revealed that the PF and PH factors were still problematic, especially with regard to factor coefficients and internal consistency estimates. We concluded that the ZTPI-TP can form the basis for a more robust version of the ZTPI.

No abstract

No abstract

Researchers continue to attempt to resolve the psychometric problems associated with the five-factor Zimbardo Time Perspective Inventory through the development of shortened forms of the scale. These atheoretical efforts have been data driven and have resulted in scales whose reliability and validity have not been subsequently supported. The purpose of this paper was to explore the factorial validity and reliability of new short scales on samples independent from which they were developed. We used data from five different samples in four different countries (Australia, Britain, Slovenia, and the United States) to examine the psychometric validity and reliability of three recently developed scales, the ZTPI-20, ZTPI-17, and ZTPI-15. Results regarding validity were equivocal for all scales and reliability coefficients were suboptimal in all samples. We conclude by stressing the necessity for a theoretically driven approach to enhancing the psychometric assessment of time perspective rather than simply sacrificing reliability or discriminant validity for improved model fit in a shorter scale.

No abstract