Next Article in Journal
Predicting Outcomes in Frail Older Community-Dwellers in Western Australia: Results from the Community Assessment of Risk Screening and Treatment Strategies (CARTS) Programme
Previous Article in Journal
Adaptation and Validation of the Post-Pandemic Health Promotion Behavior of Young Adults in the Digital Age (PS-SGD) Scale in the Turkish Population
Previous Article in Special Issue
Individualized Prediction of SARS-CoV-2 Infection in Mexico City Municipality during the First Six Waves of the Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 12
Issue 13
10.3390/healthcare12131338
healthcare-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Optimism, Resilience, and General Self-Efficacy Predict Lower Somatic Burden during the COVID-19 Pandemic

by
Alena Zolotareva
1,*,
Anna Khegay
1,
Elena Voevodina
1,
Igor Kritsky
2,
Roman Ibragimov
2,
Nina Nizovskih
3,
Vsevolod Konstantinov
4,
Arina Malenova
5,
Irina Belasheva
6,
Natalia Khodyreva
7,
Vladimir Preobrazhensky
1,
Kristina Azanova
1,
Lilia Sarapultseva
8,
Almira Galimova
9,
Inna Atamanova
10,
Anastasia Kulik
11,
Yulia Neyaskina
11,
Maksim Lapshin
12,
Marina Mamonova
13,
Ruslan Kadyrov
14,
Ekaterina Volkova
14,
Viktoria Drachkova
7,
Andrey Seryy
15,
Natalia Kosheleva
1 and
Evgeny Osin
16add Show full author list remove Hide full author list
1
International Laboratory of Positive Psychology of Personality and Motivation, HSE University, 101000 Moscow, Russia
2
Institute of Immunology and Physiology, Ural Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 620049 Ekaterinburg, Russia
3
Department of Psychology, Vyatka State University, 610000 Kirov, Russia
4
Department of General Psychology, Penza State University, 440026 Penza, Russia
5
Department of General and Social Psychology, Dostoevsky Omsk State University, 644077 Omsk, Russia
6
Department of General Psychology and Personality Psychology, North-Caucasus Federal University, 355017 Stavropol, Russia
7
Department of Psychology, Saint-Petersburg State University, 199034 Saint-Petersburg, Russia
8
Department of Mathematics and Natural Sciences, Russian State Vocational Pedagogical University, 620143 Ekaterinburg, Russia
9
Department of Theory and Technology of Social Work, Samara National Research University, 443086 Samara, Russia
10
Department of Genetic and Clinical Psychology, Tomsk State University, 634050 Tomsk, Russia
11
Department of Theoretical and Practical Psychology, Kamchatka State University Named after Vitus Bering, 683032 Petropavlovsk-Kamchatskiy, Russia
12
Department of Sports Improvement, South Ural State University, 454080 Chelyabinsk, Russia
13
Municipal Budgetary Educational Institution Lyceum 11, 454091 Chelyabinsk, Russia
14
Department of General Psychological Disciplines, Pacific State Medical University, 690002 Vladivostok, Russia
15
Department of Psychology, Kemerovo State University, 650000 Kemerovo, Russia
16
Laboratory LINP2, University of Paris Nanterre, 92001 Nanterre, France
 
add Show full affiliation list
 
remove Hide full affiliation list
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2024, 12(13), 1338; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131338
Submission received: 23 April 2024 / Revised: 23 June 2024 / Accepted: 4 July 2024 / Published: 5 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue End of the COVID-19 Era: Models, Predictions and Projections)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
There is scarce evidence of a relationship between positive and psychosomatic characteristics. This study aimed to examine the associations of somatic burden with psychological resources such as optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy. Russian participants (n = 1020) completed measures of psychological resources at Time 1 and somatic symptoms at Time 2. The results showed that somatic burden decreased with greater levels of optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy. Regarding health and sociodemographic characteristics, female sex increased somatic burden in the model with optimism scores, university education decreased somatic burden in the model with resilience scores, and history of COVID-19 disease increased somatic burden in the models with optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy scores. This study has theoretical and practical contributions. It combines positive psychology and psychosomatic medicine and highlights the value of psychological resource interventions in the treatment and prevention of somatic burden. These findings may be useful for scientists, clinicians, and practitioners.

1. Introduction

Somatic symptoms are a serious threat to human well-being. Patients with somatic symptoms are often on long-term sick leave [1], suffer from anxiety and depression [2], have physical, functional, and psychological disabilities [3], and undergo numerous medical manipulations and surgical interventions [4]. They often use medical services, but over time they lose hope in medicine and visit mental health professionals [5]. General practitioners devote up to 45% of their consultations to patients with somatic symptoms, and secondary care physicians are unable to make a clear diagnosis for 50% of these patients within three months [6]. Doctors revise the diagnosis in only 8.8% of patients with functional somatic symptoms and still fear missing somatic pathology and avoid claiming the functional nature of patients’ discomfort [7]. Finally, governments in many countries incur large costs for patients with somatic symptoms because they pay for medical services and reimburse costs due to time off work and lower on-the-job productivity [8,9,10].
The link between somatic symptoms and human well-being has become even more visible during the COVID-19 pandemic. Persons with somatic symptoms felt a greater psychological burden including anxiety [11], depression [12], perceived stress [13], sense of threat [14], reduced psychological flexibility [15], and fears and ruminations about the COVID-19 pandemic [16]. The negative effects of somatic symptoms were especially severe for people with pre-existing mental and psychical disorders [17]. Persistent physical symptoms were common in 30% of patients after SARS-CoV-2 and were associated with increased risks of negative illness perception and somatic symptom disorder [18,19,20]. Some authors even suggest that Long COVID can be conceptualized as a somatic symptom disorder, because pandemic effects create a ‘perfect storm’ for persistent somatic experiences [21,22].
Harmful outcomes and the chronic discomfort of patients with somatic symptoms force scientists to search for factors preventing somatic burden. Previous studies showed that the protective factors of somatic burden included male gender [23], partner presence, greater education background, lower anxiety, depression, and co-existing medical illnesses [24], lower alexithymia [25], lower neuroticism and higher extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, and openness to experience [26,27,28]. Some studies also showed that somatic symptoms were inversely associated with psychological resources, such as optimism [29,30], resilience [31,32,33], and general self-efficacy [34,35]. Considering the potential benefits of psychological resources for psychosomatic well-being and the fact that a high somatic burden was typical for a third of Russians during the COVID-19 pandemic [36], the present study aimed to examine the associations of somatic burden with optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy in a Russian sample.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Procedure

Data for this study were drawn from the National Study of Somatic Burden in Russia [36]. In October–December 2021, 10,205 Russians participated in the first online survey (Time 1). One year later, in October–December 2022, we sent e-mail invitations to all participants. The response rate was 10%, resulting in a sample of 1020 participants who also completed the second online survey (Time 2). The participants were thanked for their time and received generalized feedback and recommendations.

2.2. Participants

Table 1 shows participant and descriptive characteristics. The participants were mostly women (78.5%) with a median age of 37 years (range 18–83 years), with a partnership status (54.2%), university education (70.7%), and history of COVID-19 disease (56.6%).

2.3. Instruments

The participants filled out instruments assessing personality resources (Time 1) and somatic symptoms (Time 2).

2.3.1. The Life Orientation Test-Revised (LOT-R)

The LOT-R consists of 6 items measuring optimism as a tendency to expect good outcomes in various areas of life [37]. We used the Russian version of the LOT-R [38]. In this study, the total score showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.86).

2.3.2. The Brief Resilience Scale (BRS)

The BRS includes 6 items assessing the perceived ability to recover from stressors [39]. We used the Russian version of the BRS [40]. In this study, the total score showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.88).

2.3.3. The General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES)

The GSES consists of 10 items measuring the general sense of perceived self-efficacy [41]. We used the Russian version of the GSES [42]. In this study, the total score showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89).

2.3.4. The Somatic Symptom Scale (SSS-8)

The SSS-8 includes 8 items assessing somatic burden through specific somatic symptoms [43]. We used the Russian version of the SSS-8 [44]. In this study, the total score showed good internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.81).

2.4. Analytic Strategy

Data management and statistical analyzes were performed using R 3.1.1 12 software (R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria).
A linear mixed-effects model was used to examine structure in mean somatic burden scores among four subgroups of participants with hierarchical levels of optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy obtained by dividing the sample into quartiles (25th, 50th, 75th percentiles). The lme4 package 1.1-35.5 was used to build linear mixed-effects models and assess their quality (AIC). We used conditional R2 to estimate the effect size obtained from linear mixed-effects models. Conditional R2 was performed using the MuMln package 1.48.4. Comparisons of somatic symptoms between the obtained levels of optimism, resilience, and self-efficacy were performed using a t-test, correcting the result for multiple comparisons (using the Bonferroni correction).

3. Results

We used linear mixed-effects models (LMMs) to examine the differences in somatic burden in four subgroups of participants with hierarchical levels of optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy. The sex, age, partnership status, educational background, and history of COVID-19 disease were entered as fixed factors, and several models were tested separately for each level of optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy. The models were then selected using the Akaike information criterions (AICs), and the AICs were lower for models with all fixed effects. The AICs of the models are presented in Table 2.
Table 3 illustrates the results of the LMMs. Somatic burden decreased with greater levels of psychological resources including optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy. Female sex increased somatic burden in the model with optimism scores. University education decreased somatic burden in the model with resilience scores. History of COVID-19 disease increased somatic burden in the models with optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy scores.
Specific somatic symptoms decreased with the growth of psychological resources. Figure 1 illustrates these associations. The Supplementary Materials contains more detailed information.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to examine the associations of somatic burden with psychological resources. We found that persons with greater optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy reported lower somatic burden during a one-year period, than persons with poorer optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy.
These findings add to the body of knowledge on the associations of somatic burden with psychological resources during the COVID-19 pandemic. Previous studies showed that psychological resources protect mental health, namely, by reducing stress, anxiety, and depressive symptoms [45], loneliness [46], the risk of disordered eating behaviors [47], self-harm behaviors [48], and suicidality [49]. The protection of physical health does not seem so obvious; although, some studies revealed that psychological resources can lead to benefits for the physical health of HIV-infected patients [50], decreased pre-transplant death in lung transplant candidates [51], and increased physical functioning in cancer survivors and survivors of stem cell transplantation [52]. Regarding specific somatic symptoms, this study highlighted that most of the symptoms decreased with psychological resources. Convincing evidence for these findings has been collected in previous psychosomatic studies. Thus, optimism was inversely related to migraine and migraine-related disability [53], resilience was negatively correlated with sleep disturbances [54], and general self-efficacy was inversely associated with headache, neck pain, lower back pain, shoulder pain, upper back pain, arm pain, and pain in the feet [55].
Health and sociodemographic characteristics influenced somatic burden in different models of psychological resources. Female sex increased somatic symptoms in the model of optimism, which corresponds to the tendency of women to greater somatic burden and poorer optimism in a wide range of life expectations [23,56,57]. University education decreased somatic symptoms in the model of resilience, because more educated people are less susceptible to somatic burden and have more resources to maintain psychosomatic well-being [58,59]. Finally, a history of COVID-19 disease increased somatic symptoms in the models of optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy, which can be associated with persistent somatic symptoms after SARS-CoV-2 infection and the negative impact of the pandemic on psychological well-being and resources [19,60,61].
This study also has some limitations, avenues, and practical implications. First, this study contained only two measurements. We believe that several tests during this period or further observations in a few years would have provided us with more data for interpretation. Second, psychological resources include not only optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy, but also hope [62], gratitude [63], flourishing [64], positive emotions [65], character strengths [66], and positive orientations [67]. Future studies can be expanded because of these characteristics. Third, the nature of this study is self-reporting. It would be beneficial to examine the protective effects of psychological resources on somatic burden in clinical settings on patients with psychosomatic disorders and somatic symptom disorder. Despite its limitations, this study opens up the possibility of preventing somatic burden. Resilience training programs improve mental and physical health by reducing stress and anxiety symptoms [68], somatic symptoms and traumatic stress [69], negative affect and perceived stress [70], and suicidal and depressive symptoms [71]. Similar programs can alleviate or eliminate somatic burden and increase resistance to somatic and psychological distress. In addition, some exercises that increase optimism, resilience, and general self-efficacy can be used in the treatment of somatic symptom disorder and psychosomatic disorders.

5. Conclusions

This study highlights the role of psychological resources in reducing the burden of somatic symptoms. The theoretical contribution of our findings is the convergence of positive psychology and psychosomatic medicine. This gives researchers prospects to study the links between positive and psychosomatic characteristics. The practical contribution is to draw the attention of clinicians and practitioners to the prevention of somatic burden by improving psychological resources in counseling and psychotherapy.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/healthcare12131338/s1, Table S1: Comparison of specific somatic symptoms within selected groups (quartiles); Table S2: Results of the correlations performed by the Pearson test between the somatic burden scores and descriptive statistics within the selected groups (quartiles); Table S3: Descriptive statistics within selected groups (quartiles).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, methodology, data curation, project administration, writing–original draft preparation, writing—review and editing, A.Z.; formal analysis, visualization, I.K. and R.I.; investigation, A.K. (Anna Khegay), E.V. (Elena Voevodina), N.N., V.K., A.M., I.B., N.K. (Natalia Khodyreva), V.P., K.A., L.S., A.G., I.A., A.K. (Anastasia Kulik), Y.N., M.L., M.M., R.K., E.V. (Ekaterina Volkova), V.D., A.S., N.K. (Natalia Kosheleva); supervision, E.O. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the HSE University Basic Research Program.

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the School of Psychology, HSE University (protocol no. 12 dated 25 October 2021).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study. Written informed consent for publication has been waived as no identifying information was used.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author as the participants did not give consent for their raw data and transcriptions to be shared with other researchers.

Acknowledgments

We are grateful to the participants, as well as thankful to the editors and anonymous reviewers.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Woivalin, T.; Krantz, G.; Mäntyranta, T.; Ringsberg, K.C. Medically unexplained symptoms: Perceptions of physicians in primary health care. Fam. Pract. 2004, 21, 199–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. van Boven, K.; Lucassen, P.; van Ravesteijn, H.; olde Hartman, T.; Bor, H.; van Weel-Baumgarten, E.; van Weel, C. Do unexplained symptoms predict anxiety or depression? Ten-year data from a practice-based research network. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2011, 61, 316–325. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Rao, G.R.; Ranjan, P.; Chadda, R.K.; Kaloiya, G.S.; Dwivedi, S.N.; Baitha, U.; Soneja, M.; Jadon, R.S. A descriptive study of disability in patients presenting with medically unexplained physical symptoms in a medical OPD setting. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2019, 8, 1755–1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Stieler, M.; Pockney, P.; Campbell, C.; Thirugnanasundralingam, V.; Gan, L.; Spittal, M.J.; Carter, G. Somatic symptom severity association with healthcare utilization and costs in surgical inpatients with an episode of abdominal pain. BJS Open 2022, 6, zrac046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Sowińska, A.; Czachowski, S. Patients’ experiences of living with medically unexplained symptoms (MUS): A qualitative study. BMC Fam. Pract. 2018, 19, 23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  6. Chew-Graham, C.A.; Heyland, S.; Kingstone, T.; Shepherd, T.; Buszewicz, M.; Burroughs, H.; Sumathipala, A. Medically unexplained symptoms: Continuing challenges for primary care. Br. J. Gen. Pract. 2017, 67, 106–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Eikelboom, E.M.; Tak, L.M.; Roest, A.M.; Rosmalen, J.G.M. A systematic review and meta-analysis of the percentage of revised diagnoses in functional somatic symptoms. J. Psychosom. Res. 2016, 88, 60–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Konnopka, A.; Schaefert, R.; Heinrich, S.; Kaufmann, C.; Luppa, M.; Herzog, W.; König, H.-H. Economics of medically unexplained symptoms: A systematic review of the literature. Psychother. Psychosom. 2012, 81, 265–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Jadhakhan, F.; Romeu, D.; Lindner, O.; Blakemore, A.; Guthrie, E. Prevalence of medically unexplained symptoms in adults who are high users of healthcare services and magnitude of associated costs: A systematic review. BMJ Open 2022, 12, e059971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Zonneveld, L.N.; Sprangers, M.A.; Kooiman, C.G.; van’t Spijker, A.; Busschbach, J.J.V. Patients with unexplained physical symptoms have poorer quality of life and higher costs than other patient groups: A cross-sectional study on burden. BMC Health Serv. Res. 2013, 13, 520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Shevlin, M.; Nolan, E.; Owczarek, M.; McBride, O.; Murphy, J.; Miller, J.G.; Hartman, T.K.; Levita, L.; Mason, L.; Martinez, A.P.; et al. COVID-19-related anxiety predicts somatic symptoms in the UK population. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 875–882. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Zolotareva, A.; Belousova, S.; Danilova, I.; Tseilikman, V.; Lapshin, M.; Sarapultseva, L.; Makhniova, S.; Kritsky, I.; Ibragimov, R.; Hu, D.; et al. Somatic and psychological distress among Russian university students during the COVID-19 pandemic. Int. J. Psychiat. Med. 2023, 58, 119–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Kostić, J.; Žikić, O.; Đorđević, V.; Krivokapić, Ž. Perceived stress among university students in south-east Serbia during the COVID-19 outbreak. Ann. Gen. Psychiatry 2021, 20, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Jowett, S.; Shevlin, M.; Hyland, P.; Karatzias, T. Posttraumatic stress disorder and persistent somatic symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: The role of sense of threat. Psychosom. Med. 2021, 83, 338–344. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Koppert, T.Y.; Jacobs, J.W.G.; Lumley, M.A.; Geenen, R. The impact of COVID-19 stress on pain and fatigue in people with and without a central sensitivity syndrome. J. Psychosom. Res. 2021, 151, 110655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Peiró, J.M.; Luque-García, A.; Soriano, A.; Martínez-Tur, V. Fears during the Covid-19 pandemics and their influence on physical health: A cross-sectional study on the general population in Spain. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2023, 23, 100361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Greißel, A.; Schneider, A.; Donnachie, E.; Gerlach, R.; Tauscher, M.; Hapfelmeier, A. Impact of pre-existing mental health diagnoses on development of post-COVID and related symptoms: A claims data-based cohort study. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Fernandez-de-Las-Peñas, C.; Notarte, K.I.; Macasaet, R.; Velasco, J.V.; Catahay, J.A.; Ver, A.T.; Chung, W.; Valera-Calero, J.A.; Navarro-Santana, M. Persistence of post-COVID symptoms in the general population two years after SARS-CoV-2 infection: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Infect. 2024, 88, 77–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Horn, M.; Wathelet, M.; Amad, A.; Martignène, N.; Lathiere, T.; Khelfaoui, K.; Rousselle, M.; Qaoubii, O.E.; Vuotto, F.; Faure, K.; et al. Persistent physical symptoms after COVID-19 infection and the risk of Somatic Symptom Disorder. J. Psychosom. Res. 2023, 166, 111172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Hüfner, K.; Tymoszuk, P.; Sahanic, S.; Luger, A.; Boehm, A.; Pizzini, A.; Schwabl, C.; Koppelstätter, S.; Kurz, K.; Asshoff, M.; et al. Persistent somatic symptoms are key to individual illness perception at one year after COVID-19 in a cross-sectional analysis of a prospective cohort study. J. Psychosom. Res. 2023, 169, 111234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Joffe, A.R.; Elliott, A. Long COVID as a functional somatic symptom disorder caused by abnormally precise prior expectations during Bayesian perceptual processing: A new hypothesis and implications for pandemic response. SAGE Open Med. 2023, 11, 20503121231194400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Willis, C.; Chalder, T. Concern for COVID-19 cough, fever and impact on mental health. What about risk of Somatic Symptom Disorder? J. Ment. Health 2021, 30, 551–555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Barsky, A.J.; Peekna, H.M.; Borus, J.F. Somatic symptom reporting in women and men. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2001, 16, 266–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Creed, F.H.; Davies, I.; Jackson, J.; Littlewood, A.; Chew-Graham, C.; Tomenson, B.; Macfarlane, G.; Barsky, A.; Katon, W.; McBeth, J. The epidemiology of multiple somatic symptoms. J. Psychosom. Res. 2012, 72, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Raffagnato, A.; Angelico, C.; Valentini, P.; Miscioscia, M.; Gatta, M. Using the body when there are no words for feelings: Alexithymia and somatization in self-harming adolescents. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Mostafaei, S.; Kabir, K.; Kazemnejad, A.; Feizi, A.; Mansourian, M.; Keshteli, A.H.; Afshar, H.; Arzaghi, S.M.; Denkordi, S.R.; Abidi, P.; et al. Explanation of somatic symptoms by mental health and personality traits: Application of Bayesian regularized quantile regression in a large population study. BMC Psychiatry 2019, 19, 207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. van Dijk, S.D.M.; Hanssen, D.; Naarding, P.; Lucassen, P.; Comijs, H.; Oude Voshaar, R. Big Five personality traits and medically unexplained symptoms in later life. Eur. Psychiatry 2016, 38, 23–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Zunhammer, M.; Eberle, H.; Eichhammer, P.; Busch, V. Somatic symptoms evoked by exam stress in university students: The role of alexithymia, neuroticism, anxiety and depression. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e84911. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Gustems-Carnicer, J.; Calderón, C.; Santacana, M.F. Psychometric properties of the Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) and its relationship with psychological well-being and academic progress in college students. Rev. Latinoam. Psicol. 2017, 49, 19–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Murberg, T.A. The influence of optimistic expectations and negative life events on somatic symptoms among adolescents: A one-year prospective study. Psychology 2012, 3, 123–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Imeri, G.; Gallopeni, F.; Gashi, D.; Obertinca, B. The relationship between personality traits, resilience and somatic symptoms through the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Posit. Sch. Psychol. 2022, 6, 2713–2725. [Google Scholar]
  32. Shangguan, F.; Zhou, C.; Qian, W.; Zhang, C.; Liu, Z.; Zhang, X.Y. A conditional process model to explain somatization during coronavirus disease 2019 epidemic: The interaction among resilience, perceived stress, and sex. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 633433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wilson, N.; Turner-Halliday, F.; Minnis, H. Escaping the inescapable: Risk of mental health disorder, somatic symptoms and resilience in Palestinian refugee children. Transcult. Psychiatry 2021, 58, 307–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Grigaitytė, I.; Söderberg, P. Why does perceived social support protect against somatic symptoms: Investigating the roles of emotional self-efficacy and depressive symptoms? Nord. Psychol. 2021, 73, 226–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Petersen, M.W.; Carstensen, T.B.W.; Frostholm, L.; Wellnitz, K.B.; Ørnbøl, E.; Jørgensen, T.; Eplov, L.F.; Dantoft, T.M.; Fink, P. High perceived stress and low self-efficacy are associated with functional somatic disorders: The DanFunD Study. Clin. Epidemiol. 2023, 15, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Zolotareva, A.; Khegay, A.; Voevodina, E.; Kritsky, I.; Ibragimov, R.; Nizovskih, N.; Konstantinov, V.; Malenova, A.; Belasheva, I.; Khodyreva, N.; et al. Somatic burden in Russia during the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS ONE. 2023, 18, 0282345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Scheier, M.F.; Carver, C.S.; Bridges, M.W. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): A re-evaluation of Life Orientation Test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1994, 67, 1063–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Gordeeva, T.O.; Sychev, O.A.; Osin, E.N. Diagnostics of dispositional optimism: Validity and Reliability of Russian version of LOT-R. Psychology. J. High. Sch. Econ. 2021, 18, 34–55. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Smith, B.W.; Dalen, J.; Wiggins, K.; Tooley, E.; Christopher, P.; Bernard, J. The brief resilience scale: Assessing the ability to bounce back. Int. J. Behav. Med. 2008, 15, 194–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Markova, V.I.; Aleksandrova, L.A.; Zolotareva, A.A. Russian version of the Brief Resilience Scale: Psychometric analysis for the samples of students, parents with many children and parents of disabled children. Natl. Psychol. J. 2022, 45, 65–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio. Causal and Control Beliefs; Weinman, J., Wright, S., Johnston, M., Eds.; NFER-NELSON: Windsor, UK, 1995; pp. 35–37. [Google Scholar]
  42. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M.; Romek, V. Russian version of the General Self-Efficacy Scale. Foreign Psychol. 1996, 7, 71–77. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  43. Gierk, B.; Kohlmann, S.; Kroenke, K.; Spangenberg, L.; Zenger, M.; Brähler, E.; Löwe, B. The somatic symptom scale-8 (SSS–8): A brief measure of somatic symptom burden. JAMA Intern. Med. 2014, 174, 399–407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Zolotareva, A.A. Factor structure of the Russian version of the Somatic Symptom Scale-8 (SSS-8). Couns. Psychol. Psychother. 2022, 30, 8–20. (In Russian) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. To, Q.G.; Vandelanotte, C.; Cope, K.; Khalesi, S.; Williams, S.L.; Alley, S.J.; Thwaite, T.L.; Fenning, A.S.; Stanton, R. The association of resilience with depression, anxiety, stress and physical activity during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Public Health 2022, 22, 491. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Lee, J.W.; Nersesian, P.V.; Suen, J.J.; Cudjoe, T.K.M.; Gill, J.; Szanton, S.L.; Hladek, M.D. Loneliness is associated with lower coping self-efficacy among older adults. J. Appl. Gerontol. 2023, 42, 270–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Robert, M.; Buscail, C.; Allès, B.; Shankland, R.; Tavolacci, M.-P.; Déchelotte, P.; Courtois, F.; Ait-Hadad, W.; Andreeva, V.A.; Touvier, M.; et al. Resilience is associated with less eating disorder symptoms in the NutriNet-Santé Cohort Study. Int. J. Eat. Disord. 2020, 53, 1696–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Xiao, Y.; Liu, F.; Ran, H.; Deng, W.; Che, Y.; Fang, D.; Donald, A.R. Resilience mediates the association between self-harm and suicidal ideation in Chinese left-behind children. BMC Public Health 2021, 21, 2055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Shilton, T.; Hertz-Palmor, N.; Matalon, N.; Shani, S.; Dekel, I.; Gothelf, D.; Barzilay, R. Contribution of risk and resilience factors to suicidality among mental health-help-seeking adolescent outpatients: A cross-sectional study. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 1974. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Taylor, S.E.; Kemeny, M.E.; Reed, G.M.; Bower, J.E.; Gruenewald, T.L. Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. Am. Psychol. 2000, 55, 99–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bui, Y.T.; Hathcock, M.A.; Benzo, R.P.; Budev, M.M.; Chandrashekaran, S.; Erasmus, D.B.; Lease, E.D.; Levine, D.J.; Thompson, K.L.; Johnson, B.K.; et al. Evaluating resilience as a predictor of outcomes in lung transplant candidates. Clin. Transplant. 2020, 34, e14056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Schumacher, A.; Sauerland, C.; Silling, G.; Berdel, W.E.; Stelljes, M. Resilience in patients after allogeneic stem cell transplantation. Support. Care Cancer 2014, 22, 487–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Peres, M.F.P.; Oliveira, A.B.; Mercante, J.P.; Kamei, H.H.; Tobo, P.R.; Rozen, T.D.; Levin, M.; Buse, D.C.; Lucchetti, G. Optimism, pessimism, and migraine: A cross-sectional, population-based study. Headache 2019, 59, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ding, X.; Ma, S.; Liu, H.; Wang, H.; Li, N.; Song, Q.; Su, W.; Liang, M.; Guo, X.; Sun, L.; et al. The relationships between sleep disturbances, resilience and anxiety among preschool children: A three-wave longitudinal study. J. Psychosom. Res. 2023, 168, 111203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Omholt, M.L.; Tveito, T.H.; Ihlebæk, C. Subjective health complaints work-related stress and self-efficacy in Norwegian aircrew. Occup. Med. 2017, 67, 135–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Delisle, V.C.; Beck, A.T.; Dobson, K.S.; Dozois, D.J.A.; Thombs, B.D. Revisiting gender differences in somatic symptoms of depression: Much ado about nothing? PLoS ONE 2012, 7, e32490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Jacobsen, B.; Lee, J.B.; Marquering, W.; Zhang, C.Y. Gender differences in optimism and asset allocation. J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 2014, 107, 630–651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Baitha, U.; Ranjan, P.; Deb, K.S.; Bauddh, N.K.; Singh, V.; Kaloiya, G.; Kumar, A.; Sahu, A. Association of somatic symptom severity with sociodemographic parameters in patients with medically unexplained physical symptoms: A cross-sectional study from a tertiary care center in India. Cureus 2020, 12, e9250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Bittmann, F. When problems just bounce back: About the relation between resilience and academic success in German tertiary education. SN Soc. Sci. 2021, 1, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. McBride, E.; Arden, M.A.; Chater, A.; Chilcot, J. The impact of COVID-19 on health behavior, well-being, and long-term physical health. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2021, 26, 259–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Penninx, B.W.J.H.; Benros, M.E.; Klein, R.S.; Vinkers, C.H. How COVID-19 shaped mental health: From infection to pandemic effects. Nat. Med. 2022, 28, 2027–2037. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Murphy, E.R. Hope and well-being. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 2023, 50, 101558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  63. Wood, A.M.; Froh, J.J.; Geraghty, A.W.A. Gratitude and well-being: A review and theoretical integration. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2010, 30, 890–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Burns, R.A.; Windsor, T.; Butterworth, P.; Anstey, K.J. The protective effects of wellbeing and flourishing on long-term mental health risk. SSM—Ment. Health 2022, 2, 100052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Quoidbach, J.; Berry, E.V.; Hansenne, M.; Mikolajczak, M. Positive emotion regulation and well-being: Comparing the impact of eight savoring and dampening strategies. Pers. Individ. Differ. 2010, 49, 368–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Azañedo, C.M.; Artola, T.; Sastre, S.; Alvarado, J.M. Character strengths predict subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and psychopathological symptoms, over and above functional social support. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 661278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  67. Oleś, P.; Jankowski, T. Positive orientation—A common base for hedonistic and eudemonistic happiness? Appl. Res. Qual. Life 2018, 13, 105–117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  68. Leppin, A.L.; Bora, P.R.; Tilburt, J.C.; Gionfriddo, M.R.; Zeballos-Palacios, C.; Dulohery, M.M.; Sood, A.; Erwin, P.J.; Brito, J.P.; Boehmer, K.R.; et al. The efficacy of resiliency training programs: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. PLoS ONE 2014, 9, e111420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Grabbe, L.; Higgins, M.K.; Baird, M.; Pfeiffer, K.M. Impact of resiliency training to support the mental well-being of front-line workers. Med. Care 2021, 59, 616–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Boniwell, I.; Osin, E.; Kalisch, L.; Chabanne, J.; Abou Zaki, L. SPARK Resilience in the workplace: Effectiveness of a brief online resilience intervention during the COVID-19 lockdown. PLoS ONE 2023, 18, e0271753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Zhang, D.; Tian, Y.; Wang, R.; Wang, L.; Wang, P.; Su, Y. Effectiveness of a resilience-targeted intervention based on “I have, I am, I can” strategy on nursing home older adults’ suicidal ideation: A randomized controlled trial. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 308, 172–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Healthcare 12 01338 g001
Figure 1. The associations of somatic burden with psychological resources. SP = stomach or bowel pain; BP = back pain; PA = pain in arms, legs, or joints; HD = headaches; CP = chest pain or shortness of breath; DZ = dizziness; FT = feeling tired or having low energy; TS = trouble sleeping. The differences between the means of the corresponding symptom scores (delta) are presented as a polygonal plot. The closer the corresponding point is to the center of the figure, the greater the delta between the selected quartiles.
Figure 1. The associations of somatic burden with psychological resources. SP = stomach or bowel pain; BP = back pain; PA = pain in arms, legs, or joints; HD = headaches; CP = chest pain or shortness of breath; DZ = dizziness; FT = feeling tired or having low energy; TS = trouble sleeping. The differences between the means of the corresponding symptom scores (delta) are presented as a polygonal plot. The closer the corresponding point is to the center of the figure, the greater the delta between the selected quartiles.
Healthcare 12 01338 g001
Table 1. Participant and descriptive characteristics.
Table 1. Participant and descriptive characteristics.
CharacteristicMean (SD) or n (%)
Sex, female participants, n (%)801 (78.5)
Age (in years), mean (SD)37.63 (12.98)
Partnership status, being in a partnership, n (%)553 (54.2)
Educational background, university, n (%)721 (70.7)
History of COVID-19 disease, n (%)577 (56.6)
Optimism, mean (SD)26.75 (7.39)
Resilience, mean (SD)17.22 (4.89)
General self-efficacy, mean (SD)28.41 (4.82)
Somatic burden, mean (SD)10.15 (6.13)
Table 2. The AICs of the models.
Table 2. The AICs of the models.
ModelOptimismResilienceGeneral Self-Efficacy
Model 16447.36447.36447.3
Model 26441.16419.26442.7
Model 36439.56420.76442.7
Model 46440.76422.06444.6
Model 56441.66421.86444.8
Model 66440.56419.06444.0
Model 76437.26415.96441.1
Fixed effects in models: Model 1 = free member; Model 2 = optimism/resilience/general self-efficacy; Model 3 = optimism/resilience/general self-efficacy + sex; Model 4 = optimism/resilience/general self-efficacy + sex + age; Model 5 = optimism/resilience/general self-efficacy + sex + age + partnership status; Model 6 = optimism/resilience/general self-efficacy + sex + age + partnership status + educational background; Model 7 = optimism/resilience/general self-efficacy + sex + age + partnership status + educational background + history of COVID-19 disease.
Table 3. Results of the LMMs.
Table 3. Results of the LMMs.
PredictorsEstimates (CI)p-Value
Optimism (conditional R2 = 0.344)
Very low vs. Moderately low−0.48 (−1.51; 0.54)0.354
Very low vs. Moderately high−1.59 (−2.61; −0.57)0.002
Very low vs. Very high−1.59 (−2.63; −0.55)0.003
Female sex0.94 (0.08; 1.81)0.033
Age0.02 (−0.01; 0.05)0.150
Being in a partnership−0.36 (−1.07; 0.36)0.325
University education−0.75 (−1.56; 0.05)0.066
History of COVID-19 disease0.82 (0.11; 1.52)0.023
Resilience (conditional R2 = 0.341)
Very low vs. Moderately low−0.60 (−1.57; 0.37)0.223
Very low vs. Moderately high−0.96 (−1.96; 0.04)0.059
Very low vs. Very high−2.88 (−3.89; −1.87)0.001
Female sex0.43 (−0.43; 1.29)0.322
Age0.02 (−0.01; 0.05)0.104
Being in a partnership−0.51 (−1.21; 0.19)0.157
University education−0.92 (−1.72; −0.12)0.024
History of COVID-19 disease0.79 (0.10; 1.48)0.025
General self-efficacy (conditional R2 = 0.346)
Very low vs. Moderately low−0.08 (−1.19; 1.02)0.881
Very low vs. Moderately high−0.67 (−1.63; 0.28)0.168
Very low vs. Very high−1.44 (−2.44; −0.45)0.005
Female sex0.71 (−0.16; 1.57)0.108
Age0.01 (−0.01; 0.04)0.324
Being in a partnership−0.47 (−1.18; 0.24)0.196
University education−0.72 (−1.52; 0.09)0.082
History of COVID-19 disease0.79 (0.08; 1.49)0.028
CI = confidence interval.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Zolotareva, A.; Khegay, A.; Voevodina, E.; Kritsky, I.; Ibragimov, R.; Nizovskih, N.; Konstantinov, V.; Malenova, A.; Belasheva, I.; Khodyreva, N.; et al. Optimism, Resilience, and General Self-Efficacy Predict Lower Somatic Burden during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare 2024, 12, 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131338

AMA Style

Zolotareva A, Khegay A, Voevodina E, Kritsky I, Ibragimov R, Nizovskih N, Konstantinov V, Malenova A, Belasheva I, Khodyreva N, et al. Optimism, Resilience, and General Self-Efficacy Predict Lower Somatic Burden during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare. 2024; 12(13):1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131338

Chicago/Turabian Style

Zolotareva, Alena, Anna Khegay, Elena Voevodina, Igor Kritsky, Roman Ibragimov, Nina Nizovskih, Vsevolod Konstantinov, Arina Malenova, Irina Belasheva, Natalia Khodyreva, and et al. 2024. "Optimism, Resilience, and General Self-Efficacy Predict Lower Somatic Burden during the COVID-19 Pandemic" Healthcare 12, no. 13: 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131338

APA Style

Zolotareva, A., Khegay, A., Voevodina, E., Kritsky, I., Ibragimov, R., Nizovskih, N., Konstantinov, V., Malenova, A., Belasheva, I., Khodyreva, N., Preobrazhensky, V., Azanova, K., Sarapultseva, L., Galimova, A., Atamanova, I., Kulik, A., Neyaskina, Y., Lapshin, M., Mamonova, M., ... Osin, E. (2024). Optimism, Resilience, and General Self-Efficacy Predict Lower Somatic Burden during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Healthcare, 12(13), 1338. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare12131338

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop