No abstract

Within the short timeframe of the COVID‐19 pandemic, there has been increasing interest in its potential impact on psychological stress and sleep. Using standardized self‐report measures, we examined differences in stress and sleep by comparing responses from three independent samples of undergraduates in the United States. Samples were obtained prior to COVID‐19 (Spring 2019) and at two periods during the pandemic (Spring 2020 and Summer 2020) which corresponded to an increasing impact of COVID‐19 at the local level. Within the combined sample of 1222 students, 94% identified as Hispanic. Contrary to our hypotheses, stress, sleep quality and insomnia were not significantly higher in the samples collected during the COVID‐19 pandemic. However, in support of our hypotheses, bedtime and waketime were significantly later during the pandemic, and sleep duration was significantly longer. Although scores on the global measure of sleep quality did not differ across semesters, supplemental exploratory analyses demonstrated a more complex picture of differences in sleep variables. Among the findings, there was evidence of greater sleep latency, greater sleep medication use and poorer sleep efficiency during the pandemic. Our results suggest that, within the US college student population, COVID‐19's impact on stress and sleep may not be entirely negative.

A growing body of literature supports the notion that psychological stress negatively impacts physical health. In parallel to this programme of stress/health investigations, researchers are demonstrating the deleterious health effects of poor sleep. The current study simultaneously examines the association of both stress and sleep with health. Two hundred and eighteen subjects completed an anonymous survey packet that included stress, sleep and health measures. Psychological stress (as assessed by both life-events and by self-perceived stress), daytime sleepiness and poor sleep quality, but not sleep quantity, were all negatively associated with health. A regression model that integrated both stress measures was a statistically signifi cant predictor of health. Adding the sleep measures to the stress-health model accounted for a statistically signifi cantly greater proportion of the variance in health scores, with the stress + sleep model accounting for 39-56 per cent of the variance in health scores depending on the health measure used. These results suggest that studies of stress and health may benefi t from the inclusion of sleep measures and that, from a practical standpoint, poor sleep might be best understood not simply as a sequela of psychological stress but rather as a factor that should be actively addressed as part of the treatment programme.

Participants' expectancies and hypnotic performance throughout the course of a standardized, individually administered hypnotic protocol were analyzed with a structural equation model that integrated underlying ability, expectancy, and hypnotic response. The model examined expectancies and ability as simultaneous predictors of hypnotic responses as well as hypnotic responses as an influence on subsequent expectancies. Results of the proposed model, which fit very well, supported each of the 4 major hypothesized effects: Expectancies showed significant stability across the course of the hypnosis protocol; expectancies influenced subsequent hypnotic responses, controlling for latent ability; hypnotic responses, in turn, affected subsequent expectancies; and a latent trait underlay hypnotic responses, controlling for expectancies. Although expectancies had a significant effect on hypnotic responsiveness, there was an abundance of variance in hypnotic performance unexplained by the direct or indirect influence of expectation and compatible with the presence of an underlying cognitive ability.

Sensory hypersensitivity is one manifestation of the central sensitization that may underlie conditions such as fibromyalgia and chronic fatigue syndrome. We conducted five studies designed to develop and validate the Sensory Hypersensitive Scale (SHS); a 25-item self-report measure of sensory hypersensitivity. The SHS assesses both general sensitivity and modality-specific sensitivity (e.g. touch, taste, and hearing). 1202 participants (157 individuals with chronic pain) completed the SHS, which demonstrated an adequate overall internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) of 0.81, suggesting the tool can be used as a cross-modality assessment of sensitivity. SHS scores demonstrated only modest correlations (Pearson’s r) with depressive symptoms (0.19) and anxiety (0.28), suggesting a low level of overlap with psychiatric complaints. Overall SHS scores showed significant but relatively modest correlations (Pearson’s r) with three measures of sensory testing: cold pain tolerance (−0.34); heat pain tolerance (−0.285); heat pain threshold (−0.271). Women reported significantly higher scores on the SHS than did men, although gender-based differences were small. In a chronic pain sample, individuals with fibromyalgia syndrome demonstrated significantly higher SHS scores than did individuals with osteoarthritis or back pain. The SHS appears suitable as a screening measure for sensory hypersensitivity, though additional research is warranted to determine its suitability as a proxy for central sensitization.