Cross-sectional analysis determines how resilience mediates the impact of positive childhood experiences on psychological distress in health professions students, suggesting important mental...
Objective To assess the mediating role of psychological resilience in the negative association between positive childhood experiences (PCEs) and psychological distress in health professions students (HPS).Methods The authors obtained cross-sectional data, including demographic information, the Brief Resilience Scale, and Medical Student Well-Being Index, from a longitudinal survey with circannual waves of data collection in medical, advanced practice provider, (i.e., nursing and physician assistant), and veterinary students at a single institution. The confidential, web-based survey included seven questions about PCEs. The authors conducted a mediation analysis of wave 3 of the data (N = 181) using structural equation modeling, which adjusted for age, gender, underrepresented in medicine (URM) status, and first-generation status. Bootstrap confidence intervals modeled and tested the total and indirect pathways.Results The path model demonstrated an excellent fit with the data (CFI/TLI = 1.00; RMSEA < .001; SRMR < .001). As hypothesized, PCEs were positively associated with resilience (b = 0.020; p = .049), and resilience was negatively associated with psychological distress (b = −0.815; p = .003). Although PCEs were negatively associated with psychological distress (b = −0.061; p = .003), the indirect path between PCEs and psychological distress through resilience was not significant (b = −0.016; p = .114).Conclusion To our knowledge, this is the first study to examine PCES and resilience in HPS. PCEs and resilience may represent independent predictors of mental well-being in HPS. Our findings underscore the significance of identifying students with fewer PCEs and adopting interventions that support the psychological well-being of HPS, especially those who might be at a higher risk of distress.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Vo et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: