Introduction The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in severe detrimental effects on the mental well-being of health care workers (HCW). Consequently, there has been a need to identify health-promoting resources in order to mitigate the psychological impact of the pandemic on HCW. Objective Our objective was to investigate the association of sense of coherence (SOC), social support and religiosity with self-reported mental symptoms and increase of subjective burden during the COVID-19 pandemic in HCW. Methods Our sample comprised 4324 HCW of four professions (physicians, nurses, medical technical assistants (MTA) and pastoral workers) who completed an online survey from 20 April to 5 July 2020. Health-promoting resources were assessed using the Sense of Coherence Scale Short Form (SOC-3), the ENRICHD Social Support Inventory (ESSI) and one item on religiosity derived from the Scale of Transpersonal Trust (TPV). Anxiety and depression symptoms were measured with the PHQ-2 and GAD-2. The increase of subjective burden due to the pandemic was assessed as the retrospective difference between burden during the pandemic and before the pandemic. Results In multiple regressions, higher SOC was strongly associated with fewer anxiety and depression symptoms. Higher social support was also related to less severe mental symptoms, but with a smaller effect size, while religiosity showed minimal to no correlation with anxiety or depression. In professional group analysis, SOC was negatively associated with mental symptoms in all groups, while social support only correlated significantly with mental health outcomes in physicians and MTA. In the total sample and among subgroups, an increase of subjective burden was meaningfully associated only with a weaker SOC. Conclusion Perceived social support and especially higher SOC appeared to be beneficial for mental health of HCW during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, the different importance of the resources in the respective occupations requires further research to identify possible reasons.

Purpose: This article aims to identify how the term “resilience” is addressed in adult health science due to ongoing criticism about the lack of consistency in its conceptualization.Method: Two databases (PubMed and PsycArticles) were searched to retrieve reviews published from 2015 up until 2020 on the general conceptualization of resilience. All reviews had to meet specific inclusion criteria, which resulted in the inclusion of 18 articles. After discussing different conceptualizations regarding the process-oriented approach of resilience in adult health research, we will highlight some mechanisms that are supposed to be involved in the resilience process.Results: Research on resilience in health sciences confronts three core difficulties: defining positive outcome for a processual construct, describing different trajectories within the process, and identifying mechanisms that mediate resilience.Conclusion: The definition of resilience in mental health research as a multidimensional adaptation process is widely accepted, and multiple research paradigms have contributed to a better understanding of the concept. However, the definition of a processual construct in a way that allows for high expert consensus and a valid operationalization for empirical studies remains a challenge. Future research should focus on the assessment of multiple cross-domain outcomes and international and interdisciplinary prospective mixed-method longitudinal designs to fill in the missing links.

ТІТОВ Іван Геннадійович кандидат психологічних наук, доцент кафедри психології Полтавського національного педагогічного університету імені В.Г. Короленка ТІТОВА Тетяна Євгенівна кандидат психологічних наук, доцент кафедри психології Полтавського національного педагогічного університету імені В.Г. Короленка СЕДИХ Кіра Валеріївна доктор психологічних наук, професор кафедри психології Полтавського національного педагогічного університету імені В.Г. Короленка

No abstract