Abstract: Background: Despite the recent progress of women in academia, there is an underrepresentation of female editors in academic journals. Additionally, although suicide affects more low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) than high-income countries, little is known about the geographical distribution of editors in suicidology journals. Aims: We aimed to determine the gender and geographical distribution of the editorial board members (EBMs) of leading suicide journals. Method: Data were collected between November 27 and 29, 2022. We purposively selected suicidology journals, searched the journal websites, and extracted data on the gender and affiliated country of the EBM to identify the continent and income category of the country. Results: The proportion of female EBMs was 32.37% with better representation in senior positions. Only six positions (3.47%) were occupied by four individuals affiliated with LMIC backgrounds. The highest number of EBMs was located in North America (58.38%) while one member was from Africa. Limitations: Only three purposively selected journals were scrutinized. Conclusion: This study reveals that approximately one third of the editorial positions were occupied by women and less than 4% of editors were from LMICs, where suicide represents a significant burden.
This study was focused on examining the impact of action control and dispositional hope on self-regulated learning strategies and course achievement among university students. The data were collected from different Departments of Bahauddin Zakariya University Multan. Their age range was 18 to 33. After collecting the data statistical analysis was done. The study was carried out with a sample of 350 students from different Departments of the University. A booklet consisting of three questionnaires; Action Control Scale (ACS-90), Adult Dispositional Hope Scale and Self-regulated Learning Strategies Questionnaire. Age, gender, qualification and CGPA were included as demographic variables. Results indicate that action control is negatively correlated with dispositional hope and learning strategies. Whereas dispositional hope is positively correlated to all learning strategies. Results also show that action control does not predict student's performance but has an indirect effect through learning strategies. Action control predicts learning strategies. So, learning strategies are working as a mediating variable between action control and students' performance. On the other hand, dispositional hope predicts student performance; it also predicts learning strategies. The results of the Sobel test show that learning strategies are working as a mediating variable.
This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available. ; publishedVersion ; Fil: Yamada, Yuki. Kyushu University; Japón. ; Fil: Ćepulić, Dominik Borna. Catholic University of Croatia; Croacia. ; Fil: Coll Martín, Tao. Universidad de Granada; España. ; Fil: Debove, Stéphane. Independent Researcher; Francia. ; Fil: Gautreau, Guillaume. Universite Paris Saclay; Francia. ; Fil: Han, Hyemin. University of Alabama at Birmingahm; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Rasmussen, Jesper. University Aarhus; Dinamarca. ; Fil: Tran, Thao P. State University of Colorado - Fort Collins; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Travaglino, Giovanni A. University Of Kent; Reino Unido. ; Fil: Blackburn, Angélique M. Texas A&M University; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Boullu, Loïs. Independent Researcher; Francia. ; Fil: Bujić, Mila. Universidad de Tampere; Finlandia. ; Fil: Byrne, Grace. Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam; Países Bajos. ; Fil: Caniëls, Marjolein C. J. Open University of The Netherlands; Países Bajos. ; Fil: Flis, Ivan. Catholic University of Croatia; Croacia. ; Fil: Kowal, Marta. University of Wroclaw; Polonia. ; Fil: Rachev, Nikolay R. Sofia University St. Kliment Ohridski; Bulgaria. ; Fil: Reynoso Alcántara, Vicenta. Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México; México. ; Fil: Zerhouni, Oulmann. Université Paris Nanterre; Francia. ; Fil: Ahmed, Oli. University of Chittagong; Bangladesh. ; Fil: Amin, Rizwana. Bahria University; Pakistán. ; Fil: Aquino, Sibele. Pontifícia Universidade Católica do Rio de Janeiro; Brasil. ; Fil: Areias, João Carlos. Universidad de Porto; Portugal. ; Fil: Aruta, John Jamir Benzon R. de la Salle University; Filipinas. ; Fil: Bamwesigye, Dastan. Mendel University in Brno; República Checa. ; Fil: Bavolar, Jozef. Pavol Jozef Safarik University; Eslovaquia. ; Fil: Bender, Andrew R. Michigan State University; Estados Unidos. ; Fil: Bhandari, Pratik. Universitat Saarland; Alemania. ; Fil: Bircan, Tuba. Vrije Unviversiteit Brussel; Bélgica. ; Fil: Reyna, Cecilia. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina. ; Fil: Reyna Cecilia. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas; Argentina.
During the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, the COVIDiSTRESS Consortium launched an open-access global survey to understand and improve individuals' experiences related to the crisis. A year later, we extended this line of research by launching a new survey to address the dynamic landscape of the pandemic. This survey was released with the goal of addressing diversity, equity, and inclusion by working with over 150 researchers across the globe who collected data in 48 languages and dialects across 137 countries. The resulting cleaned dataset described here includes 15,740 of over 20,000 responses. The dataset allows cross-cultural study of psychological wellbeing and behaviours a year into the pandemic. It includes measures of stress, resilience, vaccine attitudes, trust in government and scientists, compliance, and information acquisition and misperceptions regarding COVID-19. Open-access raw and cleaned datasets with computed scores are available. Just as our initial COVIDiSTRESS dataset has facilitated government policy decisions regarding health crises, this dataset can be used by researchers and policy makers to inform research, decisions, and policy.
Funder: Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y Tecnología (CONCYT); doi: https://doi.org/10.13039/501100007350 ; Funder: Research Foundation Flanders (FWO) postdoctoral fellowship ; Funder: The HSE University Basic Research Program ; Funder: JSPS KAKENHI Grant JP20K14222 ; Abstract: This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.
The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis. ; Peer reviewed
