METHODS AND FINDINGS: We conducted a single-blind RCT (October 2017 -May 2019) with Chin (39.3%), Kachin (15.7%), and Rohingya (45%) refugees living in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The trial included 170 participants receiving six 45-minute weekly sessions of IAT (97.6% retention, 4 lost to follow-up) and 161 receiving a multicomponent CBT also involving six 45-minute weekly sessions (96.8% retention, 5 lost to follow-up). Participants (mean age: 30.8 years, SD = 9.6) had experienced and/or witnessed an average 10.1 types (SD = 5.9, range = 1-27) of traumatic events. We applied a single-blind design in which independent assessors of pre- and posttreatment indices were masked in relation to participants' treatment allocation status. Primary outcomes were symptom scores of Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), Complex PTSD (CPTSD), Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), the 5 scales of the Adaptive Stress Index (ASI), and a measure of resilience (the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale [CDRS]). Compared to CBT, an intention-to-treat analysis (n = 331) at 6-week posttreatment follow-up demonstrated greater reductions in the IAT arm for all common mental disorder (CMD) symptoms and ASI domains except for ASI-3 (injustice), as well as increases in the resilience scores. Adjusted average treatment effects assessing the differences in posttreatment scores between IAT and CBT (with baseline scores as covariates) were -0.08 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.02, p = 0.012) for PTSD, -0.07 (95% CI: -0.14 to -0.01) for CPTSD, -0.07 for MDD (95% CI: -0.13 to -0.01, p = 0.025), 0.16 for CDRS (95% CI: 0.06-0.026, p ≤ 0.001), -0.12 (95% CI: -0.20 to -0.03, p ≤ 0.001) for ASI-1 (safety/security), -0.10 for ASI-2 (traumatic losses; 95% CI: -0.18 to -0.02, p = 0.02), -0.03 for ASI-3 (injustice; (95% CI: -0.11 to 0.06, p = 0.513), -0.12 for ASI-4 (role/identity disruptions; 95% CI: -0.21 to -0.04, p ≤ 0.001), and -0.18 for ASI-5 (existential meaning; 95% CI: -0.19 to -0.05, p ≤ 0.001). Compared to CBT, the IAT group had larger effect sizes for all indices (except for resilience) including PTSD (IAT, d = 0.93 versus CBT, d = 0.87), CPTSD (d = 1.27 versus d = 1.02), MDD (d = 1.4 versus d = 1.11), ASI-1 (d = 1.1 versus d = 0.85), ASI-2 (d = 0.81 versus d = 0.66), ASI-3 (d = 0.49 versus d = 0.42), ASI-4 (d = 0.86 versus d = 0.67), and ASI-5 (d = 0.72 versus d = 0.53). No adverse events were recorded for either therapy. Limitations include a possible allegiance effect (the authors inadvertently conveying disproportionate enthusiasm for IAT in training and supervision), cross-over effects (counsellors applying elements of one therapy in delivering the other), and the brief period of follow-up.

CONCLUSIONS: Compared to CBT, IAT showed superiority in improving mental health symptoms and adaptative stress from baseline to 6-week posttreatment. The differences in scores between IAT and CBT were modest and future studies conducted by independent research teams need to confirm the findings.

METHODS: Higher education students from China, Ireland, Malaysia, South Korea, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the United States were enrolled in a cross-sectional study from April to May 2020, which was during the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic for most participants. An online survey, using validated tools, was distributed to assess perceived stress, dietary behaviors, alcohol misuse, sleep quality and duration, and resilience.

RESULTS: 2254 students completed the study. Results indicated that sleep quality mediated the relationship between perceived stress and dietary behaviors as well as the relationship between perceived stress and alcohol misuse. Further, increased resilience reduced the strength of the relationship between perceived stress and dietary behaviors but not alcohol misuse.

METHODS: We used a global qualitative approach to survey adults over 18 from 30 countries across six World Health Organization (WHO) regions, who detailed up to three personal positive gains from COVID-19 pandemic via an open-ended question. Inductive thematic analysis was employed to identify main themes, and quantitative methods were used for demographic and regional comparisons based on the percentage of responses for each theme.

RESULTS: From 35 911 valid responses provided by 13 853 participants, six main themes (one negative theme), 39 subthemes, and 673 codes were identified. Five positive gain themes emerged, ordered by response frequency: 1) improved health awareness and practices; 2) strengthened social bonds and trust; 3) multi-dimensional personal growth; 4) resilience and preparedness building; 5) accelerated digital transformation. The percentage of responses under these themes consistently appeared in the same order across various demographic groups and economic development levels. However, there were variations in the predominant theme across WHO regions and countries, with either Theme 1, Theme 2, or Theme 3 having the highest percentage of responses. Although our study primarily focused on positive gains, unexpectedly, 12% of responses (4304) revealed 'negative gains', leading to an unforeseen theme: 'Distrust and emerging vulnerabilities.' While this deviates from our main topic, we retained it as it provides valuable insights. Notably, these 'negative gains' had a higher percentage of responses in areas like Burundi (94.1%), Rwanda (31.8%), Canada (26.9%), and in the African Region (37.7%) and low-income (43.9%) countries, as well as among non-binary individuals, those with lower education, and those facing employment challenges.

METHODS: A cross-sectional study design was used, collecting data from 499 nurses via validated questionnaires. Statistical analyses, including descriptive statistics, correlation, and multiple regression, were conducted to assess the relationship between PsyCap and job burnout. Leadership and family were included as contextual variables in hierarchical regression models to evaluate their indirect influences.