Open access peer-reviewed chapter

Coping Strategies and Meta-Worry in Adolescents’ Adjustment during COVID-19 Pandemic

Written By

Loredana Benedetto, Ilenia Schipilliti and Massimo Ingrassia

Submitted: 04 January 2022 Reviewed: 04 July 2022 Published: 09 August 2022

DOI: 10.5772/intechopen.106258

From the Edited Volume

Adolescences

Edited by Massimo Ingrassia and Loredana Benedetto

Chapter metrics overview

102 Chapter Downloads

View Full Metrics

Abstract

With the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, several limitations and stressful changes have been introduced in adolescent’s daily life. Particularly, Italian teenagers were the first among western populations to experience fears of infection, home confinement, and social restrictions due to a long lockdown period (10 weeks). This study explores the role of coping strategies (task-oriented, emotion-oriented, and avoidance coping) and meta-beliefs about worry as vulnerability factors associated with adolescents’ anxiety. A community sample of adolescents (N = 284, aged 16–18 y.o.) answered questionnaires assessing anxiety symptoms (RCMAS-2), meta-cognitive beliefs and processes about worry (MCQ-C), and coping strategies (CISS). Results show that 37% of participants report clinically elevated anxiety. Emotion-centered coping predicted higher anxiety, whereas task-centered coping resulted associated with decreased anxiety. Cognitive monitoring about their own worry contributes, but to a lesser extent, to higher levels of anxiety. The implications for the intervention are discussed, especially the need to enhance the coping skills of adolescents and mitigate the stress of the COVID-19 pandemic, which could last for a long time.

Keywords

  • COVID-19
  • adolescents
  • coping
  • anxiety
  • meta-worry

1. Introduction

The world population has begun to hear about COVID-19 (Coronavirus Disease-2019) in December 2019, when a severe form of viral infection (SARS-CoV-2) was identified in Wuhan District, China. A few months later (March, 2020) the virus had spread to 114 countries with more than 118.000 cases and 4.291 deaths: On March 11th, 2020, pandemic status was declared [1]. Currently, as we are writing (December 15, 2021), the weekly epidemiological update of the virus shows 268 934 575 people infected and 5 297 850 persons lost their lives [2]. The pandemic strongly impacts the quality of life and mental health of populations worldwide, with psychological distress and increased anxiety symptoms both in adults [3] and adolescents [4, 5, 6].

First, studies on the consequences of COVID-19 in children have been conducted in China. Leilei et al. [7] observed that nearly 40% of adolescents had experienced a condition of psychological distress. Jiao et al. [8] found that children and adolescents (aged between 3–18 y.o.) showed anxious manifestations and looked for the proximity of others, were distracted, irritable, and afraid to ask about the pandemic.

Similar consequences in the child population were tracked in other parts of the world. A review [9] of studies from the United States, China, Europe, Australia, India, Malaysia, Korea, Thailand, Israel, Iran, and Russia shows that conditions of social distancing and loneliness—particularly when total lockdown was imposed— strongly impact adolescents’ mental health. Data globally confirm an increase in symptoms of anxiety and depression during the quarantine period [9].

From the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, parents to have observed internalizing and externalizing symptoms in their children. A Spanish/Italian study [10] indicates that nearly 85% of parents perceived changes in the emotional and behavioral state of their children (aged between 3–18 y.o.). The most frequent symptoms were difficulty concentrating (76,6%), boredom (52%), irritability (39%), restlessness (38,8%), nervousness (38%), feelings of loneliness (31,3%), unquietness (30,4%), and worry (30,1%). Spanish parents declared more symptoms than Italians (differences probably due to stricter restrictive measures). Necessarily having to remain in the (limited) space of one’s home and the prohibition to go out seemed to increase anxiety levels and other related problems, such as sleep disorders and worry. Moreover, children’s symptoms resulted positively related to parental well-being, particularly with the level of parents’ distress for imposed modifications in daily life. In Italy—where the “stay at home” period lasted from early March to May 2020—parents reported increased distress for fears of contagion, working difficulties, and the need to schedule daily routine for children, including school homework and “distance learning” [11, 12]. This increased distress, in turn, escalated the children’s problems with a bidirectional influence on the parent’s and children’s psychological adjustment [13]. Data from Hawes et al. [14] show also a link between worry about contracting the virus, school-related problems, and symptoms, such as depression, generalized anxiety, and panic/somatic symptoms in adolescents and young adults (12–22 y.o.).

Developmental and clinical literature show that children and adolescents with anxiety symptoms suffer more intense worries and have repetitive thoughts and “thinking about worry” (“meta-worry” [15, 16]). Worry is a chain of repetitive and verbal thoughts about potentially dangerous consequences of events. According to Wells’ model [17], it is not the content of the thoughts or the intensity of the worries to characterize people with emotional disorders, but meta-cognitive beliefs about worries. Meta-beliefs are intrusive and disturbing thoughts where the focus is worry itself and the functioning of one’s mind. The positive beliefs are based on the advantages or benefits of worrying as a coping strategy (e.g., “Worrying helps me to avoid problems in the future”). The negative beliefs include the thoughts of uncontrollability and the dangerousness of worry (e.g., “If I worry a lot, I could make myself sick”). Positive beliefs lead to increased worry, and when levels of worry get excessive, people become to be worried about the negative consequences of thinking, monitor their thinking, or active attempts to suppress dangerous thoughts. These cognitive experiences are associated with negative emotions and distress [17].

As with adults [17, 18], worry intensity and negative meta-beliefs about worry (dangerousness and uncontrollability) resulted positively linked with anxiety symptoms in children [19, 20] and adolescents [21]. Particularly, negative meta-cognitive beliefs are more frequent in children with clinical anxiety disorders compared to nonclinical groups [22, 23, 24]. Similarly, Natalucci et al. [25] found an association between cognitive monitoring (i.e., the tendency to be aware of one’s own thoughts), negative meta-cognitive beliefs, and internalizing disorders. These data globally support the link between frequent worry, meta-worry, and increased anxiety symptoms in children. Therefore, we can suppose that, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and related worries, in children with a tendency to worry and to monitor their internal states (meta-worry) the risk of developing anxious symptoms may increase. In agreement with Wells’s model [17, 18], meta-beliefs about worry could play an additional role in feeding and maintaining children’s anxiety symptoms.

Orgilés et al. [10] noted that more than 30% of parents observed an increase in worry in their children, especially when one of the parents left the home. Zhou et al. [26] report that approximately 40% of adolescents (aged 12–18 y.o.) declared they worried about a variety of things and were unable to control their worries. A survey [27] with an extensive sample (age range 18–70 y.o.) shows that worries about the possibility of contracting COVID-19 is present primarily in individuals with state anxiety. Among respondents with state anxiety, 33.3% were “very worried” about being infected with COVID-19, whereas only 2.2% were “not worried at all.”

When facing stressful situations, people active intentional responses to demands and emotions, also known as coping strategies [28]. Studies on coping in children and adolescents for a long time have been based on the theoretical model developed by Lazarus and Folkman [29] with adults. Authors define coping as “constantly changing cognitive and behavioral efforts to manage specific external and/or internal demands that are appraised as taxing or exceeding the resources of the person” ([29], p. 141). The most common strategies in children and adolescents are family support seeking, problem-solving, escape, and distraction. Younger children seem to prefer escape, support-seeking, and distraction, whereas adolescents adopt internal dialogue and problem-solving thanks to the development of logical-formal thinking, the ability to control their behavior, and emotion regulation [30]. Recent studies have been conducted with the aim to establish the ways adolescents cope with pandemic-related psychological distress. Studies with adolescents (e.g., [31]) highlight that adolescents’ active coping— based on doing something to reduce stress, such as thinking positively, distancing oneself from sources of stress, problem-solving, and asking for help is a protective factor to depression, anxiety, and stress development. Conversely, dysfunctional coping, such as avoidance behaviors, keeping feelings to oneself, and not seeking support resulted in a risk factor for distress and internalizing disorders [30]. Similar results emerge from the research by Türk et al. [32]. During the pandemic crisis, children who used dysfunctional coping strategies (e.g., avoidance coping) had higher anxiety levels; contrarily, children who adopted positive strategies, such as trying to lead a healthy lifestyle, experienced lower levels of anxiety. Furthermore, dysfunctional coping results are also associated with adolescent’s risk behaviors, such as internet addiction, alcohol, and other substance abuse [33].

1.1 Aim of the study

The main scope of the study was:

  1. To evaluate the incidence of anxiety conditions in an adolescents’ community sample in the context of the health emergency for COVID-19;

  2. To analyze the associations between anxiety symptoms, meta-cognitive beliefs (meta-worry), and adolescents’ coping strategies.

    The hypothesis to test were:

    1. Adolescents with elevated anxiety report higher meta-cognitive beliefs, particularly cognitive monitoring of worrying and beliefs about damage and uncontrollability of one’s worry (negative meta-worry; cf. [22]);

    2. Adolescents with high levels of anxiety show less frequent use of adaptive coping strategies (task-oriented) and more frequent use of maladaptive coping strategies (i.e., emotion-oriented and avoidance coping).

    As far as we know, there are currently no studies that have investigated the role of meta-beliefs about worry as a vulnerability factor associated with adolescents’ anxiety in the context of COVID-19. Therefore, the purpose of the study was also

  3. To estimate which factors between dysfunctional coping strategies and/or meta-worry beliefs predict elevated levels of adolescents’ anxiety.

Advertisement

2. Method

2.1 Participants and procedure

The study was conducted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic during the months of the total lockdown in Italy (2020, March-April), when the Italian government imposed severe measures to contain the transmission of infection among the population (home-confinement, teleworking, closure of schools/university, nonessential shops, and recreational places, such as gyms or cinemas, cf. [34]).

Participants were involved in the study via online sampling. An invitation to participate in the study as volunteers was diffused through some common social media networks (i.e., WhatsApp, Facebook, and Instagram). In total, 284 adolescents aged between 16 and 18 y.o. participated in the study: 201 girls (Mg = 16.91 y.o., SDg = 0.78) and 83 boys (Mb = 16.94 y.o., SDb = 0.86). Before filling in the questionnaires anonymously, participants were asked to sign their informed consent; for minors, their parents signed consent for participation.

2.2 Measures

Participants filled out the following self-report questionnaires:

  1. Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale((RCMAS-2; [35]): It is a questionnaire (49 items) with three anxiety subscales measuring the degree and quality of anxiety experienced by children and adolescents. The subscales (with yes/no response) are:

    • Physiological anxiety: Assesses somatic concerns, such as nausea, headache, sleep problems, and fatigue (e.g., “I get mad easily”).

    • Worry/oversensitivity: Estimates if and how much the child is nervous, frightened, and hypersensitive to the pressures of the environment (e.g., “I worry about what other people will think of me”).

    • Social anxiety: 16 items measuring thoughts and fears that have a social or interpersonal nature, particularly performance anxiety experienced in the school and social setting (e.g., “Others seem to do things easier than I can”).

    The anxiety total score is obtained by summing the three subscale scores. Higher scores indicate higher anxiety levels.

    For the purpose of the present study, we used the anxiety total score (Cronbach’s alpha = 0.89). As reported in Sozzari et al. [35], a cut-off of 60 T-points is assumed to identify children experiencing clinically-significant levels of anxiety.

  2. Meta-cognitions Questionnaire for Children (MCQ-C; [19, 36]): It is a self-report measure assessing the meta-cognitive beliefs about worry based on Wells’ theoretical model [17]. The MCQ-C was developed in order to extend the application of the questionnaire from adolescents to children (7–17 years). The existing version for adolescents (MCQ-A [37]) has been adapted and the statements of some items have been simplified so that they can also be understood by younger children.

    The MCQ-C is composed of 24 items presenting a series of meta-cognitive beliefs about worry and the tendency of intrusive thinking. The subscales are: (1) Positive Meta-worry (e.g., “If I worry about things now, I will have fewer problems in the future”); (2) Negative Meta-worry, that is, beliefs about uncontrollability and danger of worry (e.g., “If I worry a lot, I could make myself sick”); (3) Cognitive Monitoring, assessing the awareness of one’s own thought processes (e.g., “I play a lot of attention to the way that I think”); and (4) Superstition, Punishment and Responsibility (SPR) subscale (e.g., “If I can’t stop my thoughts, bad things will happen”). Responses are expressed according to agreement on a 4-point Likert scale (from 1 “do not agree” to 4 “agree very much”). Scores range from 24 to 94, and the higher the score, the greater the meta-cognitive activity. The internal consistency (Cronbach’s alphas) of the Italian MCQ-C resulted in adequate with adolescents’ samples [23] in all subscales (from 0.73 for cognitive monitoring to 0.83 for negative meta-worry), but inadequate for SPR subscale (0.46). However, similar results for SPR subscale were found by Smith and Hudson [38] who suppose that the heterogeneous content of items could explain the low internal consistency of this subscale.

  3. Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS; [39, 40]): It is a self-report measure that evaluates three stress coping strategies: Emotion-oriented, Task-oriented, and Avoidance Coping. The respondent rates each item on a 5-point Likert scale (1 = “not at all” to 5 = “very much”) to determine the preferred coping strategy he/she uses for different stressful situations. Each scale comprises 16 items.

    1. Task-oriented coping: The individual faces a stressful situation as a problem to be solved, focuses on the task or the efforts to manage the stressful situation (e.g., “Analyze my problem before reacting”).

    2. Emotion-oriented coping: describes emotional reactions aimed at mitigating the stress (e.g., “Blame myself for being too emotional about the situation”).

    3. Avoidance Coping, with two dimensions: Distraction, that is, avoiding a stressful circumstance with other situations (activity orientation, e.g., “Buy myself something”); Social Diversion, avoiding the stressful situation through social diversion (orientation toward the person, e.g., “Phone a friend”).

    The Italian questionnaire has a good internal consistency, with Cronbach’s alphas ranging from 0.84 (task-oriented and avoidance coping) to 0.86 (emotion-oriented coping).

2.3 Statistical analysis

The data were analyzed using IBM Statistical Package for Social Sciences (SPSS) 19.0 for Windows. First, based on RCMAS-2 total scores (T points), the sample was subdivided into two subsamples considering as grouping variable the anxiety levels: normal level (T < 60) or clinical range (T ≥ 60). Descriptive statistics (means and standard deviations) were calculated for MCQ-C (meta-cognition) and CISS (coping) scores. Gender differences in anxiety levels were then tested by one-way ANOVA (for RCMAS-2 total scores). Two separate MANOVAs 2 (anxiety level: normal vs. clinical range) x 2 (gender) were then applied to compare MCQ-C and CISS means. For both questionnaires, the scores on all subscales were considered as dependent variables. A p≤0.05 significance level was allocated in all tests.

Finally, to test the hypothesis on the associations among meta-cognitive beliefs (MCQ-C), coping strategies (CISS), and adolescent anxiety (RCMAS-2), the correlations between all measures were calculated using Pearson’s r coefficient. A linear regression analysis (stepwise method) was then calculated to estimate which factors associated with adolescents’ anxiety, that is, meta-cognitive beliefs (MCQ-C) and/or coping strategies (CISS)significantly predict RCMAS-2 scores.

Advertisement

3. Results

3.1 Anxiety

Separate RCMAS-2 total score (T points) statistics were calculated for boys (Mb = 51.13, SDb = 11.64) and girls (Mg = 56.59, SDg = 10.91). The comparison by ANOVA revealed significantly higher scores in females: F(1, 282) = 14.11, MSe = 123.85, p˂ 0.001, ηp2 = 0.05.

Based on total anxiety scores, the number of participants with anxiety symptoms in the clinical range (T≥60) was quantified. Adolescents with clinically elevated anxiety symptoms resulted in 37% of the overall sample, with not-significantly (p > 0.05) different rates for boys (24/83, 28.9%) and girls (81/201, 40.3%). The overall rate resulted over three and a half times superior to the rate (10.32%) of another Benedetto and colleagues’ study observed with analog participants some years ago [19].

3.2 Anxiety and meta-worry

Statistics (M and DS) for meta-worry beliefs (MCQ-C subscales) as a function of adolescents’ anxiety and gender are presented in Table 1. By the MANOVA it emerges that adolescents with clinical anxiety obtain higher scores in all scales of the MCQ-C, with the exception of the positive meta-worry; in addition, differences emerge for gender factors, with girls reporting higher scores in positive meta-worry, negative meta-worry, and SPR subscales (see Table 2).

MCQ-C scaleAnxietyGenderMSD
Positive meta-worryNormalBoys10.152.96
Girls9.692.74
Clinical rangeBoys11.043.29
Girls9.832.74
TotalBoys10.413.07
Girls9.752.73
Negative meta-worryNormalBoys7.242.47
Girls8.613.27
Clinical rangeBoys9.753.04
Girls11.483.24
TotalBoys7.962.87
Girls9.773.54
Cognitive monitoringNormalBoys17.733.24
Girls18.703.99
Clinical rangeBoys20.833.68
Girls20.803.88
TotalBoys18.633.64
Girls19.554.07
SPRNormalBoys11.033.66
Girls12.573.46
Clinical rangeBoys15.133.89
Girls16.124.26
TotalBoys12.224.15
Girls14.004.17

Table 1.

Means and standard deviations of MCQ-C scores as a function of participants’ anxiety level and gender.

MCQ-C = meta-cognitions questionnaire for children; and SPR = superstition, punishment, and responsibility.

SourceMeasureSSDfMSFpηp2
Anxiety levelPositive meta-worry13.240113.2401.6460.200.006
Negative meta-worry365.8181365.81838.220<0.0010.120
Cognitive monitoring341.9231341.92323.833<0.0010.078
SPR736.0231736.02351.488<0.0010.155
GenderPositive meta-worry35.398135.3984.4020.0370.015
Negative meta-worry121.3911121.39112.683<0.0010.043
Cognitive monitoring11.151111.1510.7770.3790.003
SPR81.334181.3345.6900.0180.020
Anxiety level * GenderPositive meta-worry7.16317.1630.8910.3460.003
Negative meta-worry1.63811.6380.1710.6790.001
Cognitive monitoring12.663112.6630.8830.3480.003
SPR3.71413.7140.2600.6110.001
ErrorPositive meta-worry2251.7572808.042
Negative meta-worry2679.9922809.571
Cognitive monitoring4017.03428014.347
SPR4002.64828014.295

Table 2.

Statistics of between subjects effect tests from the MANOVA 2 (Anxiety level: normal vs. clinical range) × 2 (Gender: boys vs. girls) with MCQ-C subscale scores as dependent variables (N = 284).

SPR = Superstition, punishment, and responsibility; SS = sum of squares; df = degrees of freedom; and MS = mean of squares.

Significant results are in boldface.

3.3 Anxiety and coping

Tables 3 and 4 report distribution and inferential statistics, respectively, referred to the CISS scale as a function of anxiety level (normal vs. clinical range) and gender (boys vs. girls). Participants with anxiety clinical range scored lower on task-oriented coping and higher emotion-oriented coping than participants with normal anxiety levels. Furthermore, girls scored higher on emotion-oriented coping than boys.

CISS scaleAnxietyGenderMSD
Task-oriented copingNormalBoys58.888.30
Girls57.7210.46
Clinical rangeBoys52.2113.17
Girls55.1110.97
TotalBoys56.9510.33
Girls56.6710.72
Emotion-oriented copingNormalBoys40.8112.46
Girls45.0710.71
Clinical rangeBoys54.0010.41
Girls60.649.75
TotalBoys44.6313.29
Girls51.3412.84
Avoidance copingNormalBoys50.7313.30
Girls53.2513.22
Clinical rangeBoys54.1312.01
Girls52.4011.93
TotalBoys51.7112.96
Girls52.9112.69
DistractionNormalBoys24.346.39
Girls24.276.73
Clinical rangeBoys25.216.66
Girls24.886.95
TotalBoys24.596.44
Girls24.516.81
Social DiversionNormalBoys33.6117.41
Girls41.3619.80
Clinical rangeBoys33.7915.23
Girls36.8019.45
TotalBoys33.6616.71
Girls39.5219.74

Table 3.

Means and standard deviations of CISS scores as a function of participants’ anxiety level and gender.

CISS = Coping inventory for stressful situations.

SourceCISS scaleSSdfMSFpηp2
Anxiety levelTask-oriented coping1087.67111087.6719.9400.0020.034
Emotion-oriented coping10432.436110432.43689.147<0.0010.241
Avoidance coping81.442181.4420.4980.4810.002
Distraction27.595127.5950.6110.4350.002
Social diversion241.3161241.3160.6770.4110.002
GenderTask-oriented coping38.464138.4640.3520.5540.001
Emotion-oriented coping1496.98111496.98112.792<0.0010.044
Avoidance coping7.89617.8960.0480.8260.000
Distraction2.05912.0590.0460.8310.000
Social diversion1459.81011459.8104.0950.0440.014
Anxiety level × Gender (interaction)Task-oriented coping207.7891207.7891.8990.1690.007
Emotion-oriented coping71.968171.9680.6150.4340.002
Avoidance coping227.9101227.9101.3950.2390.005
Distraction0.84910.8490.0190.8910.000
Social diversion283.0271283.0270.7940.3740.003
ErrorTask-oriented coping30638.053280109.422
Emotion-oriented coping32767.033280117.025
Avoidance coping45750.144280163.393
Distraction12647.41128045.169
Social diversion99814.423280356.480

Table 4.

Statistics of between subjects effect tests from the MANOVA 2 (Anxiety level: normal vs. clinical range) × 2 (Gender: boys vs. girls) with CISS scale scores as dependent variables (N = 284).

3.4 Regression analysis

Pearson’s r coefficients (Table 5) indicate highly significant associations (p <0.001) between negative meta-worry, cognitive monitoring, SPR beliefs, and more elevated anxiety levels. Furthermore, anxiety resulted positively associated with emotion-oriented coping (p <0.001) and negatively correlated with task-oriented coping (p < 0.001). Finally, avoidance coping resulted positively associated with cognitive monitoring (p <0.05).

ScaleRCMAS-2MCQ-CCoping
1.2.3.4.5.6.7.8.
1. RCMAS-2 Anxiety1
2. MCQ-C – Positive meta-worry0.071
3. MCQ-C – Negative meta-worry0.58**0.27**1
4. MCQ-C – Cognitive monitoring0.40**0.35**0.50**1
5. MCQ-C – SPR0.55**0.20**0.64**0.54**1
6. Task-oriented coping−0.20**0.37**0.010.24**0.051
7. Emotion-oriented coping0.73**0.15*0.69**0.43**0.63**0.051
8. Avoidance coping−0.010.060.000.12*0.120.40**0.21**1

Table 5.

Pearson’s r coefficients between RCMAS-2, MCQ-C, and CISS scale (N = 284).

Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (two-tailed).


Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (two-tailed).


RCMAS-2 = Revised children's manifest anxiety scale-2; MCQ-C = meta-cognitions questionnaire for children; and SPR = superstition, punishment, and responsibility.

A linear regression analysis (stepwise method) considering the anxiety levels (RCMAS-2 total) as the criterion variable and meta-worry beliefs (MCQ-C subscales) and coping strategies (CISS subscales) as predictors were carried out. Results are displayed in Table 6.

ModelPredictorBSE BβtRc2F per ΔR2
Step 1Emotion-oriented coping0.630.040.7318.117*0.536328.24*
Step 2Emotion-oriented coping0.640.030.7419.539*0.59038.23*
Task-oriented coping−0.250.04−0.24−6.183*
Step 3Emotion-oriented coping0.570.040.6716.255*0.61317.65*
Task-oriented coping−0.300.04−0.28−7.209*
Cognitive monitoring0.510.120.184.201*

Table 6.

Summary of stepwise regression analysis for variables predicting anxiety levels (RCMAS-2 scores).

p ≤ 0.001.


A three-factor model explains the greater proportion of variance [i.e., Rc2 = 0.61, F(3, 280) = 150.58, p < 0.001]: Emotion-focused Coping resulted the stronger positive predictor of anxiety, followed by task-oriented coping but with a negative direction. Furthermore, cognitive monitoring entered in the 3rd model explaining a positive direction with a smaller but significant variance portion of anxiety scores.

Advertisement

4. Discussion

The aim of the present study was to explore the psychological impact of COVID-19 on Italian adolescents, a population of young people among the most affected by the pandemic, and the restrictions on daily life due to the long lockdown among western countries. Fear of contagion and death, home confinement, the lack of direct contact with peers, and the interruption of recreational and school activities abruptly changed the daily life of teenagers, with immediate effects on perceived stress and psychopathological symptoms whose long-term maintenance is currently unknown [41]. Particularly, this study investigated the relative contribution of meta-cognitive beliefs about worries and coping styles in predicting adolescents’ anxiety symptoms. In fact, while there are several studies on the role of coping in reacting to COVID-19-related distress [6, 31, 32], no research as far as we know has explored how meta-worry beliefs contribute to anxiety. According to Wells’s [17] meta-cognitive model, people who are aware of their worries and who try to control them experience higher levels of anxiety, which tend to be maintained over time.

First, the participants were subdivided into two subsamples with/without clinical anxiety symptoms, according to RCMAS-2 (Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale-2) measures [35]. Data indicate that 37% of participants fall within the clinical range. This estimated incidence is higher than the worldwide prevalence of clinically elevated anxiety among adolescents prior to the COVID-19 pandemic (11.6% as reported by Racine et al. [42]). Moreover, this 37% rate of Italian adolescents with clinically elevated anxiety is markedly higher than the percentage (10.32%) reported by Benedetto et al. [19] with the same anxiety measures (RCMAS-2) in a community sample of adolescents before the outbreak of the pandemic.

Data from the present study also agree with gender differences observed in studies prior to COVID-19 [23, 43] and during the pandemic [14, 26, 44], with girls reporting more anxiety symptoms than boys.

In line with the hypotheses, participants with elevated anxiety report higher scores in meta-cognitive processes, with the only exception of positive meta-worry. In other words, in this study, anxious adolescents perceived their worries as most dangerous and uncontrollable (e.g., “I can’t control my worries”), they spent more time to monitor their thoughts (“I must stop worrying”), or they seemed more superstitious about the influence of their thoughts on reality (“If I keep worrying something bad will happen”). Otherwise, the positive beliefs—thinking about worry’s usefulness—seem to have a subordinate role in participants’ anxiety. Unlike adults [17], the role of positive meta-worry in the genesis and maintenance of children’s internalizing disorders has not always been confirmed [e.g., 45, 46]. Instead, data from the present study are to be added to the more consistent ones about the link between negative meta-beliefs (dangerousness/uncontrollability of worry) and the intensity of children’s worry (e.g., [16, 47]).

The present study aimed also to explore the association between adolescents’ anxiety and coping strategies to mitigate stress during the period of total lockdown. Supporting the starting hypothesis, we found that adolescents with low anxiety levels use more often active coping (e.g., use problem-solving skills) compared with anxious adolescents. Conversely, participants with clinical levels of anxiety declared a more intense use of emotion-focused coping (e.g., altering one’s feelings and thoughts about events) in trying to reduce the emotional reactivity derived from the stressful experience. In addition, emotion-oriented coping was engaged more frequently in girls than boys. Avoidance coping (e.g., withdrawing or distracting oneself from the awareness of the problem) result positively related with cognitive monitoring, that is, the tendency to engage in meta-cognitive self-reflection and active control of one’s feelings and thoughts. However, this task-irrelevant thinking maintained by cognitive monitoring may increase opportunities for negative appraisals of intrusive thoughts, increasing anxiety symptoms [48]. Therefore, avoidance and emotion-focused coping, together with maladaptive cognitive processes, intensify rather than attenuate anxiety. In addition, maladaptive coping strategies, as a preferred coping strategy, distract attention from the external environment and from the search for more effective solutions (such as changing the situation through active action; cf. [48]). In confirmation of this, in the present study, adolescent’s anxiety symptoms resulted linked with increased use of maladaptive coping strategies for managing emotions and/or avoiding stressful events, but decreased activation of task-oriented coping.

A stepwise regression was conducted to assess which factors among meta-worry beliefs and coping strategies predicted adolescents’ anxiety. It was found that emotion-focused coping is the strongest predictor of anxiety, followed by task-oriented coping with a reverse negative direction. Cognitive monitoring, with a positive direction, added a small but significant amount of variance in anxiety levels. Therefore, it would seem that emotion-based coping is a risk factor for elevated anxiety symptoms, while task-oriented coping seems to act as a protective factor. Cognitive monitoring influences anxious expression, but to a lesser extent if compared to coping strategies.

In sum, our data, together with findings by Zhang et al. [31] and Türk et al. [32], suggest that an emphasis on emotion-focused coping and avoidance coping may have accentuated anxiety symptoms in teenagers. Our findings are also consistent with Hussong et al. [49], who underline cumulative stress associated with teenagers’ experience with the COVID-19 pandemic: In fact, while initially, the restrictions due to the pandemic might seem short-lived (such as a temporary closure of schools and distancing from friends), uncertainty has increased over the weeks. In their longitudinal study (May–July 2020), authors found that increased symptoms (both internalizing/ externalizing) were mitigated in teenagers with problem-focused coping and greater self-efficacy (a greater sense of agency and positive affect), but were exacerbated in teenagers with an emotion-focused coping style.

This study has certainly some limitations to be addressed. First, the cross-sectional research design cannot provide a causal relationship between the health and social crisis due to COVID-19 and the increased anxiety symptoms in adolescents. Only for descriptive purposes, we compare the results of the present study with those of our quite similar study for design (community sample) and anxiety measures [23]. Although this previous study is not strictly comparable to a pre-COVID-19 baseline—as there are no within-subject repeated measures— some considerations are plausible. We note that in the current sample the adolescents with clinical symptoms resulted more than triple (37%) of those observed in the previous study (11.6%). Future studies could examine with longitudinal design the changes not only in anxiety symptoms but also in the strategies with which children and adolescents can cope with COVID-19 worries and restrictions on daily life. A longitudinal approach will be needed in future research as the health and social crisis due to COVID-19 is persisting around the world and the long-term psychological impact on the population is unknown [50].

A second limit is the sample composition, predominantly female and numerically small. The research was conducted in Italy, the first of the European countries to be involved in the acute phases of the COVID-19 outbreak and to experience a long total lockdown (10 weeks, March–May 2020; [34, 51]. Home confinement, social distancing from family and peers, fears, and worries experienced by the Italian youths have affected their psychological distress [11, 12, 13], but these conditions cannot be generalized to other groups for different detrimental impacts across countries. Other studies evidence that poverty and socioeconomic disadvantage, living in rural rather than urban areas, high local prevalence of COVID-19 infection, loss of a loved person for COVID-19, and exposure to social media disseminating fears are all contextual factors associated with higher distress and internalizing disorders [52]. Finally, the study measures are self-reported and the questionnaires were disseminated through the web. This online sampling strategy was necessary as the research was conducted during the period of the total lockdown, but self-selection among the participants cannot be excluded. Similarly, preexisting physical or psychopathological conditions that may have increased participants’ vulnerability to anxiety have not been evaluated (cf. [50]).

Despite these limitations, the findings of present study evidence maladaptive coping and cognitive factors associated with adolescents’ anxiety. Particularly, emotion-focused seem to affect anxiety symptoms to a greater extent than meta-cognitive beliefs, whereas task-oriented coping predicted lower anxiety. Findings highlight the need for active interventions aimed to enhance adolescents’ psychological resources to cope with daily pandemic-related stress.

Advertisement

5. Conclusions

The development of interventions aimed to increase adolescents’ resilience to COVID-19 related stress is a priority for both researchers and health professionals, particularly in the perspective that the crisis due to COVID-19 disease may persist for a long time negatively affecting daily life and well-being of young populations. Anxiety symptoms exhibit some continuity over time, leading to the need for early intervention. Cognitive-behavioral therapies, together with the most recent procedures that include meta-cognitive components, are the recommended approaches for adolescents [53, 54]. Particularly, addressing meta-cognitive beliefs about worry is an effective and promising approach for children’s anxiety treatment [55].

Intervention programs that enhance effective coping strategies should be promoted by services and health professionals to ensure adequate psychological support to youths. The effectiveness of coping-centered programs is well known: For example, Essau et al. [56] have demonstrated that 10 weeks of training on coping skills (e.g., problem solving, self-reward for trying, and achieving goals), identifying and modifying anxiety-related thoughts, reduced anxiety and depression symptoms in children and adolescents. More recently, Orgilés et al. [57] have developed a program aimed to enhance coping skills and resilience to deal with the COVID-19 pandemic. Results show that children in the intervention group reported less symptoms of anxiety, unstable mood, sleep problems, and cognitive impairments during home confinement than children who did not receive the intervention. In this control group, children continued to use more likely emotionally oriented strategies. which were associated with greater psychological distress. Having more family/social support and having the opportunity to engage in physical activity are also protective factors associated with reduced anxiety [58]. Since the emergency for COVID-19 is far from over, the challenge for scholars and professionals will be to disseminate effective programs also use innovative strategies (such as school-based or app-based support; cf. [59]) in order to reach a larger population of young people.

References

  1. 1. World Health Organization (WHO). WHO Director-General’s Opening Remarks at the Media Briefing on COVID-19 [Internet]. 2020. Available from: https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---11-march-2020 [Accessed: December 15, 2021]
  2. 2. World Health Organization (WHO). Weekly Epidemiological Update on COVID-19. Geneva: WHO; 2021
  3. 3. Vindegaard N, Benros ME. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 2020;89:531-542. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.048
  4. 4. Adıbelli D, Sümen A. The effect of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic on health-related quality of life in children. Children and Youth Services Review. 2020;119:105595. DOI: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2020.105595
  5. 5. Gruber J, Prinstein MJ, Clark LA, Rottenberg J, Abramowitz JS, Albano AM, et al. Mental health and clinical psychological science in the time of COVID-19: Challenges, opportunities, and a call to action. The American Psychologist. 2021;76(3):409-426. DOI: 10.1037/amp0000707
  6. 6. Dąbkowska M, Kobierecka-Dziamska A, Prusaczyk M. Anxiety, coping strategies and resilience among children and adolescents during COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review. In: Gabrielli F, Irtelli F, editors. Anxiety, Uncertainty, and Resilience during the Pandemic Period – Anthropological and Psychological Perspectives. London: IntechOpen; 2021. pp. 1-16
  7. 7. Leilei L, Ren H, Ruilin C, Yueyang H, Zeying Q, Chuanen L, et al. The effect of Covid-19 on youth mental health. The Psychiatric Quarterly. 2020;91(3):841-852. DOI: 10.1007/s11126-020-09744-3
  8. 8. Jiao WY, Wang LN, Liu J, Fang SF, Jiao FY, Pettoello-Mantovani M, et al. Behavioral and emotional disorders in children during the COVID-19 epidemic. The Journal of Pediatrics. 2020;221:264-266
  9. 9. Loades ME, Chatburn E, Higson-Sweeney N, Reynolds S, Shafran R, Brigden A, et al. Rapid systematic review: The impact of social isolation and loneliness on the mental health of children and adolescents in the context of COVID-19. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. 2020;59:1218-1239
  10. 10. Orgilés M, Morales A, Delvecchio E, Mazzeschi C, Espada JP. Immediate psychological effects of the COVID-19 quarantine in youth from Italy and Spain. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:579038. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579038
  11. 11. Cusinato C, Iannattone S, Spoto A, Poli M, Moretti C, Gatta M, et al. Stress, resilience, and well-being in Italian children and their parents during the COVID-19 pandemic. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2020;17:8297. DOI: 10.3390/ijerph17228297
  12. 12. Crisci G, Mammarella IC, Moscardino UMM, Roch M, Thorell LB. Distance learning effects among Italian children and parents during COVID-19 related school lockdown. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2021;12:782353. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2021.782353
  13. 13. Spinelli M, Lionetti F, Pastore M, Fasolo M. Parents’ stress and children’s psychological problems in families facing the COVID-19 outbreak in Italy. Frontiers in Psychology. 2020;11:1713. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.01713
  14. 14. Hawes MT, Szenczy AK, Klein DN, Hajcak G, Nelson BD. Increases in depression and anxiety symptoms in adolescents and young adults during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychological Medicine. 2021;13:1-9. DOI: 10.1017/S0033291720005358
  15. 15. Ellis DM, Hudson JL. The metacognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder in children and adolescents. Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. 2010;13:151-163. DOI: 10.1007/s10567-010-0065-0
  16. 16. Köcher LM, Schneider K, Christiansen H. Thinking about worry: A systematic review and meta-analysis on the assessment of metacognitions in children and adolescents. World Journal of Psychiatry. 2021;11(9):635-658. DOI: 10.5498/wjp.v11.i9.635
  17. 17. Wells A. The metacognitive model of GAD: Assessment of meta-worry and relationship with DSM-IV generalized anxiety disorder. Cognitive Therapy and Research. 2005;29(1):107-121
  18. 18. Wells A. Metacognitive Therapy for Anxiety and Depression. New York, NY: The Guilford Press; 2009. p. 316
  19. 19. Benedetto L, Di Blasi D, Pacicca P. Worry and meta-cognitive beliefs in childhood anxiety disorders. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2013;1:1-14. DOI: 10.6092/2282-1619/2013.1.932
  20. 20. Wilson C, Hughes C. Worry, beliefs about worry and problem solving in young children. Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy. 2011;39:507-521. DOI: 10.1017/S1352465811000269
  21. 21. Ellis DM, Hudson JL. Test of the metacognitive model of generalized anxiety disorder in anxiety-disordered adolescents. Journal of Experimental Psychopathology. 2011;2:28-43
  22. 22. Bacow TL, Ehrenreich J, Brody LR, Pincus DB. Are there specific metacognitive processes associated with anxiety disorders in youth? Psychology Research and Behavior Management. 2010;3:81-90
  23. 23. Benedetto L, La Fauci E, Ingrassia M. Exploring meta-worry and perceived parenting behaviors in adolescents’ anxiety. Life Span and Disability. 2018;21(2):117-141
  24. 24. Esbjørn BH, Lønfeldt NN, Nielsen SK, Reinholdt-Dunne ML, Sømhovd MJ, Cartwright-Hatton S. Meta-worry, worry, and anxiety in children and adolescents: Relationships and interactions. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2015;44:145-156. DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2013.873980
  25. 25. Natalucci G, Faedda N, Quinzi A, Fegatelli DA, Fazi M, Verdecchia P, et al. Metacognition and theory of mind in children with migraine and children with internalizing disorders. Neurological Sciences. 2019;40:187-189
  26. 26. Zhou SJ, Zhang LG, Wang LL, Guo ZC, Wang JQ, Chen JC, et al. Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of psychological health problems in Chinese adolescents during the outbreak of COVID-19. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry. 2020;29(6):749-758. DOI: 10.1007/s00787-020-01541-4
  27. 27. Liu S. Liu Yi, Liu Yo. Somatic symptoms and concern regarding COVID-19 among Chinese college and primary school students: A cross-sectional survey. Psychiatry Research. 2020;289:113070. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.113070
  28. 28. Compas BE, Connor-Smith JK, Saltzman H, Thomsen AH, Wadsworth ME. Coping with stress during childhood and adolescence: Problems, progress, and potential in theory and research. Psychological Bulletin. 2001;127:87-127. DOI: 10.1037/0033-2909.127.1.87
  29. 29. Lazarus RS, Folkman S. Stress, Appraisal, and Coping. New York: Springer; 1984. p. 456
  30. 30. Eschenbeck H, Schmid S, Schröder I, Wasserfall N, Kohlmann CW. Development of coping strategies from childhood to adolescence. European Journal of Health Psychology. 2018;25:18-30
  31. 31. Zhang C, Ye M, Fu Y, Yang M, Luo F, Yuan J, et al. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on teenagers in China. Journal of Adolescent Health. 2020;67(6):747-755. DOI: 10.1016/j.jadohealth.2020.08.026
  32. 32. Türk F, Kul A, Kılınç E. Depression-anxiety and coping strategies of adolescents during the Covid-19 pandemic. Turkish Journal of Education. 2021;10(2):58-75
  33. 33. Singh S, Pandey NM, Datta M, Batra S. Stress, internet use, substance use and coping among adolescents, young-adults and middle-age adults amid the ‘new normal’ pandemic era. Clinical Epidemiology and Global Health. 2021;12:100885
  34. 34. Sanfelici M. The Italian response to the COVID-19 crisis: Lessons learned and future direction in social development. The International Journal of Community and Social Development. 2020;2(2):191-210. DOI: 10.1177/2516602620936037
  35. 35. Reynolds CR, Richmond BO. (RCMAS-2)Revised Children’s Manifest Anxiety Scale. Second ed. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services; 2008
  36. 36. Bacow TL, Pincus DB, Ehrenreich JL, Brody LB. The metacognitions questionnaire for children: Development and validation in a clinical sample of children and adolescents with anxiety disorders. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2009;23(6):727-736
  37. 37. Cartwright-Hatton S, Mather A, Illingworth V, Brocki J, Harrington R, Wells A. Development and preliminary validation of the Meta-cognitions Questionnaire-Adolescent Version. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2004;18(3):411-422. DOI: 10.1016/S0887-6185(02)00294-3
  38. 38. Smith KE, Hudson JL. Metacognitive beliefs and processes in clinical anxiety in children. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology. 2013;42:590-602. DOI: 10.1080/15374416.2012.755925
  39. 39. Endler NS, Parker JDA. Coping Inventory for Stressful Situations (CISS) Manual. 2nd ed. Toronto, Canada: Multi- Health Systems; 1999
  40. 40. Sirigatti S, Stefanile C. CISS – Coping Inventory for Stressful Situation. Standardizzazione e validazione italiana. Italy: Firenze; 2009
  41. 41. Cohen ZP, Cosgrove KT, DeVille DC, Akeman E, Singh MK, White E, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on adolescent mental health: Preliminary findings from a longitudinal sample of healthy and at-risk adolescents. Frontiers in Pediatrics. 2021;9:622608. DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.622608
  42. 42. Racine N, McArthur BA, Cooke JE, Eirich R, Zhu J, Madigan S. Global prevalence of depressive and anxiety symptoms in children and adolescents during COVID-19: A meta-analysis. JAMA Pediatrics. 2021;175(11):1142-1150. DOI: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.2482
  43. 43. Manna G, Falgares G, Ingoglia S, Como MR, De Santis S. The relationship between self-esteem, depression and anxiety: Comparing vulnerability and scar model in the Italian context. Mediterranean Journal of Clinical Psychology. 2016;4:1-16. DOI: 10.6092/2282-1619/2016.4.1328
  44. 44. Liu N, Zhang F, Wei C, Jia Y, Shang Z, Sun L, et al. Prevalence and predictors of PTSS during COVID-19 outbreak in China hardest-hit areas: Gender differences matter. Psychiatry Research. 2020;287:112921. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112921
  45. 45. Thielsch C, Andor T, Ehring T. Do metacognitions and intolerance of uncertainty predict worry in everyday life? An ecological momentary assessment study. Behaviour Therapy. 2015;46:532-543. DOI: 10.1016/j.beth.2015.05.001
  46. 46. Clauss K, Bardeen JR, Rhomas K, Benfer N. The interactive effect of emotional reactivity and maladaptive metacognitive beliefs on anxiety. Cognition & Emotion. 2019;33:393-401. DOI: 10.1080/02699931.2019.1625752
  47. 47. Ramos-Cejudo J, Salguero JM. Negative metacognitive beliefs moderate the influence of perceived stress and anxiety in long-term anxiety. Psychiatry Research. 2017;250:25-29. DOI: 10.1016/j.psychres.2017.01.056
  48. 48. Matthews G, Hillyard EJ, Campbell SE. Metacognition and maladaptive coping as components of test anxiety. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy. 1999;6:111-125
  49. 49. Hussong AM, Midgette AJ, Thomas TE, Coffman JL, Cho S. Coping and mental health in early adolescence during COVID-19. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology. 2021;49(9):1113-1123. DOI: 10.1007/s10802-021-00821-0
  50. 50. Manchia M, Gathier AW, Yapici-Eser H, Schmidt MV, de Quervain D, van Amelsvoort T, et al. The impact of the prolonged COVID-19 pandemic on stress resilience and mental health: A critical review across waves. European Neuropsychopharmacology. 2022;55. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2021.10.864
  51. 51. Rossi R, Socci V, Talevi D, Mensi S, Niolu C, Pacitti F, et al. COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown measures impact on mental health among the general population in Italy. Frontiers in Psychiatry. 2020;11:790. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00790
  52. 52. Nocentini A, Palladino BE, Menesini E. Adolescents’ stress reactions in response to COVID-19 pandemic at the peak of the outbreak in Italy. Clinical Psychological Science. 2021;9(3):507-514. DOI: 10.1177/2167702621995761
  53. 53. Myhr P, Hursti T, Emanuelsson K, Löfgren E, Hjemdal O. Can the attention training technique reduce stress in students? A controlled study of stress appraisals and meta-worry. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:1532. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01532
  54. 54. Reinholdt-Dunne ML, Blicher A, Nordahl H, Normann N, Esbjørn BH, Wells A. Modeling the relationships between metacognitive beliefs, attention control and symptoms in children with and without anxiety disorders: A Test of the S-REF Model. Frontiers in Psychology. 2019;10:1205. DOI: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01205
  55. 55. Esbjørn BH, Normann N, Christiansen BM, Reinholdt-Dunne ML. The efficacy of group metacognitive therapy for children (MCT-c) with generalized anxiety disorder: An open trial. Journal of Anxiety Disorders. 2018;53:16-21. DOI: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2017.11.002
  56. 56. Essau CA, Conradt J, Sasagawa S, Ollendick TH. Prevention of anxiety symptoms in children: Results from a universal school-based trial. Behavior Therapy. 2012;43(2):450-464
  57. 57. Orgilés M, Espada JP, Morales A. How super skills for life may help children to cope with the Covid-19: Psychological impact and coping styles after the program. Revista de Psicología Clínica con Niños y Adolescentes. 2020;7(3):88-93
  58. 58. Wang M-T, Del Toro J, Scanlon CL, Schall JD, Zhang AL, Belmont AM, et al. The roles of stress, coping, and parental support in adolescent psychological well-being in the context of COVID-19: A daily-diary study. Journal of Affective Disorders. 2021;294:245-253
  59. 59. Serlachius A, Schache K, Boggiss A, Lim D, Wallace-Boyd K, Brenton-Peters J, et al. Coping skills mobile app to support the emotional well-being of young people during the COVID-19 pandemic: Protocol for a Mixed Methods Study. JMIR Research Protocols. 2020;9(10):e23716. DOI: 10.2196/23716

Written By

Loredana Benedetto, Ilenia Schipilliti and Massimo Ingrassia

Submitted: 04 January 2022 Reviewed: 04 July 2022 Published: 09 August 2022