Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted university teaching globally. The mental health impacts on international university students have been overlooked.Aims: This study examined the differences in COVID-19-related stressors and mental health impacts between international university students studying in the UK or USA who returned to their home country or region (returnees) and those who stayed in their institution country (stayers), and identified COVID-19-related stressors and coping strategies that were predictors of mental health.Method: An online questionnaire survey was conducted from April 28 through May 12, 2020 using an exponential, non-discriminative snowball sampling strategy (registered at the National Institutes of Health: NCT04365361).Results: A total of 124 full-time international university students (36.3% male) were included: 75.8% had returned to their home country or region for reasons related to COVID-19; 77.4% were pursuing a bachelor's program, and 53.2% were in programs with practicum component. 84.7% of all students had moderate-to-high perceived stress, 12.1% had moderate-to-severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, and 17.7% had moderate-to-severe symptoms of insomnia. Compared with returnees, stayers had significantly higher stress from COVID-19-related stressors such as personal health and lack of social support (Cohen's d: 0.57–1.11), higher perceived stress [10-item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)] {22.6 ± 6.2 vs. 19.1 ± 6.1, β [95% confidence interval (CI)]: 4.039 (0.816, 7.261), Cohen's d: 0.52}, and more severe insomnia symptoms [Insomnia Severity Index (ISI)] [11.8 ± 6.1 vs. 7.6 ± 5.2, β (95% CI): 3.087 (0.262, 5.912), Cohen's d: 0.45], with moderate-to-large effect sizes. Compared with males, females reported significantly higher stress from uncertainties about academic program (Cohen's d: 0.45) with a small effect size. In the total sample, stress related to academics (e.g., personal attainment, uncertainties about academic program, and changes in teaching/learning format), health (including personal health and health of family and friends), availability of reliable COVID-19-related information, and lack of social support predicted more negative mental health impacts. Resilience, positive thinking, and exercise were predictors of less severe mental health impacts.Conclusions: Stayers experienced more adverse mental health impacts than returnees. We call on educators and mental health professionals to provide appropriate support for international students, particularly the stayers, during the pandemic.

No abstract

IntroductionCommunities are seeking to learn if and how they can improve the well-being of their residents. We therefore examined the impact of a community-led, collective-impact initiative, deployed through Blue Zones Project by Sharecare, aimed at improving health and well-being in one set of US communities.MethodsWe used data from cross-sectional surveys of the Well-Being Index (2010–2017) to assess how the Life Evaluation Index (LEI) in Hermosa Beach, Manhattan Beach and Redondo Beach in California (Beach Cities) changed over time and how this change compares with change for similar cities (Beach Cities-like) and for the USA as a whole. We examined types of interventions, perceived impacts, and relationships between intervention type and change in LEI.ResultsThe Beach Cities experienced greater increases in LEI than Beach Cities-like communities and the nation. The entire portfolio of interventions was positively associated with change in LEI in the Beach Cities (+1.12, p=0.012), with process-oriented interventions most closely associated with improvement.ConclusionsCommunity-led collective action that leverages community engagement and activation, strategic use of programming and large-scale built-environment and policy change can improve health and well-being at scale.

No abstract

ObjectivesWell-being is a holistic, positively framed conception of health, integrating physical, emotional, social, financial, community and spiritual aspects of life. High well-being is an intrinsically worthy goal for individuals, communities and nations. Multiple measures of well-being exist, yet we lack information to identify benchmarks, geographical disparities and targets for intervention to improve population life evaluation in the USA.DesignUsing data from the Gallup National Health and Well-Being Index, we conducted retrospective analyses of a series of cross-sectional samples.Setting/participantsWe summarised select well-being outcomes nationally for each year, and by county (n=599) over two time periods, 2008–2012 and 2013–2017.Main outcome measuresWe report percentages of people thriving, struggling and suffering using the Cantril Self-Anchoring Scale, percentages reporting high or low current life satisfaction, percentages reporting high or low future life optimism, and changes in these percentages over time.ResultsNationally, the percentage of people that report thriving increased from 48.9% in 2008 to 56.3% in 2017 (p<0.05). The percentage suffering was not significantly different over time, ranging from 4.4% to 3.2%. In 2013–2017, counties with the highest life evaluation had a mean 63.6% thriving and 2.3% suffering while counties with the lowest life evaluation had a mean 49.5% thriving and 6.5% suffering, with counties experiencing up to 10% suffering, threefold the national average. Changes in county-level life evaluation also varied. While counties with the greatest improvements experienced 10%–15% increase in the absolute percentage thriving or 3%–5% decrease in absolute percentage suffering, most counties experienced no change and some experienced declines in life evaluation.ConclusionsThe percentage of the US population thriving increased from 2008 to 2017 while the percentage suffering remained unchanged. Marked geographical variation exists indicating priority areas for intervention.