Next Article in Journal
Glenohumeral Osteoarthritis: A Biological Advantage or a Missed Diagnosis?
Next Article in Special Issue
Effect of Dialectical Behavior Therapy on Negative Affect, and Symptoms of Depression and Anxiety in Individuals with Borderline Personality Disorder during COVID-19 Pandemic
Previous Article in Journal
Urinary Biomarkers for Lupus Nephritis: A Systems Biology Approach
Previous Article in Special Issue
A Longitudinal Study of the Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Anxiety and Stress among Medical University Students
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
JCM
Volume 13
Issue 8
10.3390/jcm13082340
jcm-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Day After: The Longitudinal Effect of COVID-19 Lockdown on Quality of Life of University Students and the Moderator Role of Mindfulness

by
Pamela Barone
1,2,
Carmen Borrás-Sansaloni
1,
Marina Ricco-Pérez
1,3,
Emilio López-Navarro
1,3 and
Capilla Navarro-Guzmán
1,3,*
1
Department of Psychology, University of the Balearic Islands, 07122 Palma, Spain
2
Human Evolution and Cognition (EvoCog) Research Group, University of the Balearic Islands, 07122 Palma, Spain
3
Behavioral Assessment and Treatment, Environmental and Laboratory Studies (BEATLES) Research Group, University of the Balearic Islands, 07122 Palma, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13(8), 2340; https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082340
Submission received: 24 March 2024 / Revised: 11 April 2024 / Accepted: 15 April 2024 / Published: 18 April 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue The Impact of the COVID-19 Emergency on the Quality of Life of the General Population, Part II)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: The COVID-19 lockdown has been a major stressor for the general population, posing a considerable threat to quality of life (QoL), particularly among university students. Existing research highlights the protective role of dispositional mindfulness (DM) in mitigating stressors; however, its influence on moderating the impact of COVID-19 on QoL remains unknown. We used a longitudinal design to assess the QoL of undergraduate students before and after the COVID-19 lockdown, while also examining the potential moderating effect of DM on this impact. Methods: One hundred eleven Spanish undergraduate students were recruited in 2019, and 103 were followed-up in 2020. Instruments comprised a demographic questionnaire, the World Health Organization Quality of Life BREF (WHOQOL-BREF) inventory to assess QoL, and the Five Facets Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) to assess DM. Results: Analyses revealed statistically significant differences between the two time points in WHOQOL-BREF: Psychological, Social Relationships, and Environmental. Moderation analyses revealed that the impact of COVID-19 on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores was moderated by FFMQ-Observe and FFMQ-Non-judging. Conclusions: The COVID-19 lockdown resulted in a reduction of QoL among undergraduate students, yet this impact was moderated by DM. Specifically, present moment attention to experience (observe) and non-judgmental awareness attenuated the impact of COVID-19 on psychological well-being. Future research should focus on evaluating the protective role of preventive interventions designed to increase DM among undergraduate students.

1. Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared the novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19) a global pandemic on 11 March 2020 [1]. Governments worldwide, including Spain, imposed strict lockdown measures to contain the virus, which was initiated on 15 March 2020 [2]. In such circumstances, people were allowed to leave their homes only for first necessity issues. Despite these efforts, Spain faced a significant COVID-19 impact, reporting over 33,666 deaths attributed to the COVID-19 virus by 3 September 2020 [3,4,5]. Although effective in containing the spread of COVID-19, lockdown and social distancing measures highly affected people’s mental health and quality of life (QoL) [6,7,8]. Increases in psychological distress, anxiety, and depression were the most significant psychological effects reported in the literature [9,10,11,12,13]. Studies conducted in Spain have also underscored these trends [3,14], with young adults being particularly vulnerable [10,12,15,16]. A meta-analysis, encompassing 27 studies with a total of 90,879 university students across 15 countries, revealed elevated rates of anxiety (39.4%) and depression (31.2%) in this group, alongside other mental health concerns such as stress, post-traumatic stress disorder, and impaired sleep quality due to the COVID-19 pandemic [17].
QoL, as defined by the WHO [18], encompasses various aspects of well-being, including physical health, psychological state, social relationships, and environmental factors. It refers to individuals’ perception of their position in life within the cultural and value systems they inhabit, in relation to their goals, expectations, standards, and concerns. University students faced significant disruptions to their daily routines and academic pursuits, such as the transition to online classes, which may have adversely affected their QoL. Studies have shown that, during the pandemic, medical students exhibited weaker QoL in the psychological domain compared to other domains [19]. Additionally, compared to the norms of the QoL scores in the general population, psychological and social relationship QoL levels among university students were relatively low during the pandemic, while physical health and environmental QoL levels were comparable [20]. These findings underscore the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the QoL of this particular population and highlight the importance of addressing their well-being during these challenging times.
However, most of the studies, to our knowledge, are cross-sectional (due to the unforeseeable nature of the COVID-19 pandemic) or focus on a wide range of age groups. Some longitudinal studies began after the onset of the pandemic [12,21]. While these studies are crucial for comprehending the evolution of well-being and QoL among individuals throughout the pandemic, they limit the comparison within individuals before and after the onset of COVID-19. Only a handful of longitudinal cohort studies have explored changes in mental health among the same group of participants, both pre-pandemic and during the pandemic in 2020 [22].
Furthermore, it is essential to explore the potential protective factors that may have mitigated the psychological effects induced by COVID-19 previously discussed [10,23,24]. Mindfulness is defined as the individual’s inclination to direct attention and awareness to current experience [25]. Mindfulness can be considered as a state, a practice, or a trait that can be cultivated through training. On the one hand, mindfulness-based techniques have been shown efficient in reducing symptoms related to stress, anxiety, or depression [26]. During the COVID-19 lockdown, for instance, a study investigated the effectiveness of a Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program on Italian females. The results showed that MBSR training significantly improved mindfulness skills, self-acceptance, purpose in life, and relation to others. Additionally, participants with higher mindfulness scores showed greater psychological flexibility and well-being, suggesting that MBSR interventions can support psychological well-being during adverse events like the COVID-19 lockdown [6].
On the other hand, mindfulness can be regarded as a disposition, defined as an individual’s capacity and inclination to sustain mindfulness in everyday activities, embrace a nonjudgmental and accepting stance, and direct attention to present thoughts and feelings [27]. This is the focus of our study. Previous work has shown that greater subjective well-being is linked to dispositional mindfulness (DM) and is characterized by reduced levels of depression and anxiety [27]. Therefore, DM emerges as a promising candidate to help people cope with stressful situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic [28]. A study conducted on Chinese university students during the COVID-19 lockdown highlighted that enhancing DM among college students during lockdown could effectively reduce anxiety and depression while also improving subjective well-being [29]. Another study involving adults across various age groups revealed that fear of COVID-19 was associated with increased levels of depression, stress, and anxiety. Nevertheless, DM moderated this relationship [30].
While numerous studies have examined the effects that the COVID-19 pandemic has had on QoL, there remains a need for research that delves deeper into the specific mechanisms and moderators involved. Our study aims to address this gap by investigating the longitudinal impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on the QoL of university students, with a particular focus on the moderating role of DM.
Despite the growing body of literature on this topic, several significant questions remain unanswered. Firstly, existing research has primarily adopted cross-sectional designs or focused on broader age ranges, limiting our understanding of the longitudinal effects of the pandemic on QoL, especially among university students [13,17,19,20,23,24]. Secondly, while some studies have explored the relationship between mindfulness and mental health outcomes during the pandemic [28,29], few have specifically examined the protective potential of DM moderating the effect of the pandemic on QoL [30,31].
To address the gaps mentioned above, we conducted a longitudinal study with a cohort of undergraduate students before and after the onset of the pandemic. Thus, our study has two aims: first, to assess the longitudinal impact on QoL of a homogeneous sample before and after the COVID-19 lockdown, and second, to explore the role of DM as a factor that could potentially moderate the abovementioned effect on QoL.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Design

We designed a pre–post study following a convenience sampling of students from the first course of a public university. Data were collected during the first day of class. Data collection was conducted in September 2019, prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, and then again in September 2020, after the pandemic had begun. Data collection was conducted in person at both assessment points. Eligibility criteria were (1) proficiency in the Spanish language and (2) provision of informed consent. Data collection was gathered by the third and fourth authors. There was no economic or academic credit reward for participation in the study.
The research followed the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki and received approval from the Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Balearic Islands. Participant confidentiality was ensured by anonymizing all data collected and assigning unique identifiers to participants. Data protection measures were implemented according to institutional guidelines.

2.2. Sample

The sample consisted of undergraduate students enrolled in the first course of Psychology who were invited to participate in the study. At the first assessment, these students were taking an introductory subject focused on the principles and basic foundations of scientific Psychology during the first evaluation semester. Students were informed by the fourth author about the aims of the study and what their participation could entail. Once participants provided their consent to participate in the study, they started the assessment questionnaires. At the second assessment, students were taking a subject about the foundations of psychological assessment. The assessment sequence was the same as at the first assessment point and was conducted by the fourth author.

2.3. Instruments

Participants first completed a demographic questionnaire, providing information about their age and sex. Subsequently, the following instruments were administered:
  • The World Health Organization Quality of Life: Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF) scale to assess QoL [32]. This is a 26-item questionnaire assessing QoL across four domains: physical health (e.g., sleep quality), psychological well-being (e.g., positive emotion, self-esteem), social relationships (e.g., social support and sexual activity), and environment (e.g., transportation, healthcare assistance). Additionally, two separate items assess an individual’s overall perception of QoL and health. Responses to items are rated on a five-point Likert scale rating their QoL during the last two weeks. Domain scores are calculated by averaging the scores of items within each domain. A higher domain score indicates a better QoL in that particular domain. The WHOQOL-BREF has been widely used in the general population [33,34] and clinical samples [35,36]. The Spanish version of the WHOQOL-BREF was used, which has shown adequate psychometric properties with reliability ranging from 0.88 to 0.90 [37,38].
  • The Spanish adaptation of the Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) to assess mindfulness in daily life [39]. The FFMQ comprises 39 items rated on a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (Never or Very Rarely True) to 5 (Very Often or Always True). The FFMQ assesses trait mindfulness across five dimensions: non-reactivity to inner experience; observation of sensations, perceptions, thoughts, and feelings in the present moment; acting with awareness; describing with words emotional or affective experiences in the present moment; and non-judging of internal experiences. The FFMQ demonstrates acceptable internal consistency (0.88) as well as convergent and discriminant validity [39].

2.4. Statistical Analyses

Descriptive statistics were generated for both assessment points covering age, sex, and scores on the WHOQOL-BREF and FFMQ questionnaires. Before conducting any analysis, assumptions of normality and homogeneity of variances were tested through visual inspection using raincloud forests and with Shapiro–Wilk and Levene tests, as recommended by Palmer et al. [40].
The time assessments were compared on age, sex, WHOQOL-BREF, and FFMQ scores. Chi squared was used as a statistical contrast for categorical data, and Student t for quantitative data. We checked homoscedasticity and normality assumptions before proceeding with any manipulation check. To assess the effect of COVID-19 lockdown, we ran four ANCOVAs, one for each WHOQOL-BREF dimension, setting the years as factors and FFMQ scores as covariates. Eta squared was used as an effect size estimator. If parametric assumptions were not met, then confidence intervals were bootstrapped at 1000 samples to perform a robust statistical significance test.
If a statistically significant difference was found in the previous analyses, then a moderation analysis was performed setting FFMQ dimensions as moderators between year and WHOQOL-BREF. The aim of this analysis was to assess if DM changed the relationship between COVID-19 lockdown and WHOQOL-BREF scores. For each dimension of the FFMQ, a moderation analysis was performed, setting the remaining dimensions of the FFMQ scores as covariates. Following Hayes [41], the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles were calculated for each interaction below a p-value of 0.10. Confidence intervals in moderation analyses were bootstrapped at 5000 samples. Statistical significance was set at 5%. ANCOVA analyses and moderation analyses were conducted using SPSS 26 and the MACRO PROCESS version 4.2 [41].

3. Results

The sample was composed mainly of women (80.2%) with a mean age of 18.92 (SD = 1.44). From the original sample of 111 participants in 2019, there were 8 dropouts in 2020. These participants did not continue during the subsequent academic year. Table 1 shows the demographic features of the sample and mean scores in the FFMQ covariables.
No WHOQOL-BREF dimension met normality assumption nor homoscedasticity; Physical (Shapiro–Wilk (214) = 0.766; p < 0.001—Levene Test: F(212) = 3.94, p = 0.049), Psychological (Shapiro–Wilk (214) = 0.951; p < 0.001—Levene Test: F(212) = 3.18, p = 0.076), Social Relationships (Shapiro–Wilk (214) = 0.917; p < 0.001—Levene Test: F(212) = 7.67, p = 0.006), Environmental (Shapiro–Wilk (214) = 0.963; p < 0.001—Levene Test: F(212) = 9.02, p = 0.003). Therefore, analyses were bootstrapped to avoid bias in confidence intervals estimation.
ANCOVA on WHOQOL-BREF Physical scores revealed no statistically significant difference for the variable year, F(214) = 1.42, p = 0.235, η2 = 0.007. However, significant effects were observed for the covariates FFMQ-Non-judging, F(214) = 6.1, p = 0.014, η2 = 0.029, and FFMQ-Acting with awareness scores, F(214) = 6.51, p = 0.011, η2 = 0.031, but not for FFMQ-Observe, F(214) = 0.14, p = 0.709, η2 = 0.001, FFMQ-Describe F(214) = 0.72, p = 0.397, η2 = 0.004, nor FFMQ-Non reactivity F(214) = 0.41, p = 0.523, η2 = 0.002.
Analysis of WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores showed a statistically significant difference for the year factor that was associated to a nearly moderate effect size, F(214) = 12.3, p = 0.001, η2 = 0.057. Regarding the covariates, only FFMQ-Non-judging scores exerted a statistically significant effect on the variance accounted for the year factor, F(214) = 8.76, p = 0.003, η2 = 0.41. The rest of the covariates did not reach statistical significance: FFMQ-Observe, F(214) = 0.21, p = 0.647, η2 = 0.001; FFMQ-Describe F(214) = 0.91, p = 0.34, η2 = 0.004; FFMQ-Acting with awareness F(214) = 1.25, p = 0.265, η2 = 0.006; FFMQ-Non reactivity F(214) = 3.3, p = 0.071, η2 = 0.016.
For WHOQOL-BREF Social Relationships scores, ANCOVA found statistically significant differences for the year factor, F(214) = 10.1, p = 0.002, associated to a small to moderate effect size, η2 = 0.047. None of the covariates exerted a statistically significant effect: FFMQ-Observe, F(214) = 0.88, p = 0.349, η2 = 0.004; FFMQ-Describe F(214) = 0.03, p = 0.862, η2 < 0.001; FFMQ-Non-judging, F(214) = 1.18, p = 0.278, η2 = 0.006; FFMQ-Acting with awareness F(214) = 0.35, p = 0.557, η2 = 0.002; FFMQ-Non reactivity F(214) = 0.55, p = 0.461, η2 = 0.003.
Analysis of WHOQOL-BREF Environmental scores revealed statistically significant differences for the year factor, F(214) = 4.81, p = 0.029, η2 = 0.023; however, no covariate was found to exert a statistically significant effect: FFMQ-Observe, F(214) = 0.11, p = 0.743, η2 = 0.001; FFMQ-Describe F(214) = 1.26, p = 0.262, η2 = 0.006; FFMQ-Non-judging, F(214) = 0.69, p = 0.408, η2 = 0.003; FFMQ-Acting with awareness F(214) = 0.27, p = 0.897, η2 < 0.001; FFMQ-Non reactivity F(214) = 0.02, p = 0.897, η2 < 0.001. Table 2 shows detailed information of the ANCOVA results in the main outcomes.
Moderation analyses were conducted to examine whether FFMQ scores moderate the relationship between the COVID-19 lockdown (year) and WHOQOL-BREF scores. Regarding WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores, two models were found to be significant.
First, the model containing FFMQ-Observe significantly accounted for variance in WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores (R2 = 0.106, F(5, 208) = 4.95, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the interaction between the factor and the moderator was statistically significant (t = 2.43, p = 0.016; see Table 3). Interaction analysis revealed that at low levels of FFMQ-Observe (16th and 50th percentiles), a statistically significant negative effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores was observed (β = −1.71, t = −4.07, p < 0.001 and β = −0.9, t = −3.18, p = 0.002, respectively). Conversely, at high levels of FFMQ-Observe scores (84th percentile), no statistically significant effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores was observed (β = −0.32, t = −0.83, p = 0.406).
Second, the model containing FFMQ-Non-judging significantly accounted for variance in WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores (R2 = 0.169, F(5, 208) = 8.43, p < 0.001). Furthermore, the interaction between the factor and the moderator was statistically significant (t = 3.45, p = 0.001; see Table 3). Interaction analysis revealed that at low levels of FFMQ-Non-judging (16th and 50th percentiles), a statistically significant negative effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores was observed (β = −1.95, t = −4.97, p < 0.001 and β = −1.95, t = −4.97, p < 0.001, respectively). In contrast, scores above the 84th percentile did not moderate the effect of the COVID-19 lockdown on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores (β = −0.1, t = −0.28, p = 0.779).
Table 3 displays the results of the moderation analysis examining the interaction between the dimensions of the WHOQOL-BREF and FFMQ scores. Figure 1 shows the moderation effects of the FFMQ scales (Observe and Non-judging) on the impact of year on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores.

4. Discussion

While numerous studies have examined the immediate effects of the pandemic on various populations [7,8,10,11,15,42,43], there has been a gap in research regarding how QoL changed within a specific cohort before and after the onset of the pandemic. In our longitudinal study, we assessed the QoL of university students before and after the COVID-19 lockdown, while also investigating the potential moderating effect of DM on this impact. Our findings revealed two main points. First, we observed a decline in the QoL of university students following the lockdown, particularly in the psychological, social relationships, and environmental dimensions of QoL. Second, we found that DM played a moderating role in the relationship between the COVID-19 lockdown and psychological QoL. Specifically, the Observe and Non-judging dimensions of the FFMQ were identified as moderators. This study contributes to a more nuanced understanding of how the pandemic influenced different aspects of QoL among university students.
This study makes several important contributions to the existing literature on the effects of COVID-19 lockdown on university students’ QoL. Our findings align with previous research indicating that the COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant negative impact on various dimensions of QoL among university students [19,20]. For instance, Chawla [19] indicated that medical students also experienced lower QoL during the pandemic, particularly in the psychological dimension. Furthermore, declines in both psychological and social relationship QoL levels among university students during the pandemic have been reported [20]. Additionally, our study also contributes to this discussion by showing the impact of the pandemic on the environmental dimension of QoL. In conclusion, the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on QoL is undeniable. To account for these findings, the widespread prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress documented during the pandemic [9,10,11,12,13,17,19,20] likely played a significant role in the decline of the psychological dimension of QoL among participants in our study. Similarly, the implementation of social distancing measures and restrictions on social activities to mitigate the spread of COVID-19 may have provoked the decrease in social relationship QoL. Additionally, the environmental dimension of QoL, which encompasses various factors, like financial resources, safety, and access to health services [44], may have been adversely affected by the pandemic-related restrictions and changes, leading to a decline in this domain as well.
Our findings point to a protective effect of DM on the effect of COVID-19 lockdown on QoL. In particular, individuals with high levels of observation and nonjudgmental awareness did not experience a statistically significant impact of the COVID-19 lockdown on psychological well-being (i.e., WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores). We found that people with a strong tendency to notice or attend to stimuli in one’s internal and external environment resulted in a lesser negative effect of COVID-19 lockdown than individuals who did not show that tendency. Also, our results suggest that people that tend to accept internal experiences, such as thoughts, feelings, and sensations, without judging them showed a lesser negative effect on psychological well-being. These results are convergent with studies reporting the protective effect of these tendencies in a wide range of stressful situations that reduce psychological well-being, such as breast cancer [45], psychotic experiences [46], stressful events in adolescence [47], suicidal ideation [48], adverse childhood experiences [49], or trauma [50]. Furthermore, our results validate and deepen previous studies suggesting that DM moderates the adverse psychological effects of COVID-19. Previous research has linked an increase in subjective well-being with DM, resulting in a reduction in symptoms of depression and anxiety [27,51]. This capacity of mindfulness to confront stressful situations has become particularly evident during the COVID-19 health crisis [28]. Enhancing DM in Chinese university students effectively mitigated anxiety and depression while simultaneously improving subjective well-being [29]. Consistently, our findings highlight the protective potential of DM in buffering the adverse impact of the pandemic on QoL. This underscores the relevance of cultivating mindfulness skills, particularly during periods of heightened stress and uncertainty, such as during COVID-19 confinement.
The growing evidence regarding the protective role of DM in psychological COVID-19 impact can be explained by the Monitor and Acceptance Theory [52]. The Monitor and Acceptance Theory posits that the positive effect exerted by dispositional mindfulness on psychological QoL accounts for the combination of two components: attention monitoring and acceptance. The attention monitoring component involves the self-regulation of attention to notice distractions and disengage from them to refocus on the present. The acceptance component alludes to an open, nonjudgmental stance towards whatever arises in the present moment. It is not merely toleration but an active, welcoming approach to experiencing thoughts, feelings, and sensations without trying to change them [53]. Consequently, attention monitoring focused on the present is associated with psychological well-being only when one’s experiences are approached with acceptance. According to Simione and Saldarini [54], the Monitoring component can be assessed with FFMQ-Observe and the Acceptance component with FFMQ-Non-judging. We found that both dimensions moderate the negative effect on psychological QoL of the COVID-19 lockdown. In the context of our study, we can surmise that an individual who was aware of the implications of the COVID-19 lockdown yet refrains from evaluative judgment would exhibit a better psychological QoL than another individual who, despite being aware of the implications, dwells on the potential consequence.
Overall, our findings have significant implications for university students and relevant stakeholders, especially in facing similar challenging circumstances in the future [13]. Given the observed decline in QoL dimensions, prioritizing mental health support for university students is essential. This may involve establishing psychological support programs that offering counseling services, workshops on stress management, and resilience-building activities [23]. Ensuring easy access to mental health resources and encouraging students to seek help when needed is also crucial. Bearing in mind that the effect of COVID-19 on QoL occurred in different stages of life—like childhood and adolescence [55], elderly people [56], and pregnant women [43]. Also, in a university setting the implementation of interventions fostering dispositional mindfulness could have side benefits given the mediator effect of DM on the relationship between anxiety and exam performance [57].
While our study provides valuable insights, several limitations should be taken into consideration. First, our sample comprised psychology students, which may limit the generalizability of the findings to other university students or broader populations. Second, the uneven distribution of sex in our sample, due to the overrepresentation of women in psychology programs, could potentially impact the generalizability of the findings. Specifically, research by Trzcionka et al. revealed differing responses to stressful situations among male and female students, with women in technical fields exhibiting lower resistance and those in medical sciences displaying higher levels of resilience [58]. Third, the sample size was relatively small, potentially limiting the statistical power of the analysis. Future studies should be aimed at exploring gender differences and include more diverse and larger samples to enhance the generalizability of these findings and provide insights into the nuanced effects of mindfulness on QoL across different populations.
The limitations mentioned above highlight the need for caution when interpreting the findings and, at the same time, suggest avenues for future research to address these concerns. Further studies should aim to explore the potential role of mindfulness in enhancing psychological QoL during global events involving drastic changes or significant consequences. Given the unpredictable nature of pandemics, replicating our findings using a longitudinal design may not be feasible. Researchers could evaluate the effectiveness of preventive interventions designed to enhance DM among university students and assess their protective role in maintaining psychological well-being during challenging times.

5. Conclusions

Our study emphasizes the enduring impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the QoL among university students, as evidenced by declines in the psychological, social relationships, and environmental dimensions. Additionally, it highlights the potential moderating influence of DM in alleviating the negative impact of the pandemic and fostering psychological well-being.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, P.B., C.B.-S., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; methodology, P.B.; E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; software, E.L.-N.; validation, E.L.-N.; formal analysis, E.L.-N.; investigation, P.B., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; resources, P.B., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; data curation, P.B., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; writing—original draft preparation, P.B., C.B.-S., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; writing—review and editing, P.B., C.B.-S., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; visualization, P.B., C.B.-S., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; supervision, P.B., C.B.-S., M.R.-P., E.L.-N. and C.N.-G.; project administration, E.L.-N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Research Ethics Committee of the University of the Balearic Island (protocol code 1806/2019, 5 April 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all subjects involved in the study.

Data Availability Statement

Data are available on request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. World Health Organization. Listings of WHO’s Response to COVID-19. Available online: https://www.who.int/news/item/29-06-2020-covidtimeline (accessed on 22 February 2024).
  2. Real Decreto 463/2020, de 14 de Marzo, Por El Que Se Declara El Estado de Alarma Para La Gestión de La Situación de Crisis Sanitaria Ocasionada Por El COVID-19. 2020. Available online: https://www.boe.es/buscar/doc.php?id=BOE-A-2020-3692 (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  3. Odriozola-González, P.; Planchuelo-Gómez, Á.; Irurtia, M.J.; de Luis-García, R. Psychological Symptoms of the Outbreak of the COVID-19 Confinement in Spain. J. Health Psychol. 2022, 27, 825–835. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Instituto Nacional de Estadística. Defunciones Según Causa de Muerte. Avance Enero-Mayo 2020. 2020. Available online: https://www.ine.es/mapas/svg/indicadoresDefuncionCausa.htm (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  5. Instituto de Salud Carlos III Informe No 42. Situación de COVID-19 En España. Casos Diagnosticados a Partir 10 de Mayo. 2020. Available online: https://repisalud.isciii.es/handle/20.500.12105/11024 (accessed on 11 March 2024).
  6. Accoto, A.; Chiarella, S.G.; Raffone, A.; Montano, A.; de Marco, A.; Mainiero, F.; Rubbino, R.; Valzania, A.; Conversi, D. Beneficial Effects of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction Training on the Well-Being of a Female Sample during the First Total Lockdown Due to COVID-19 Pandemic in Italy. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 5512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Amerio, A.; Lugo, A.; Stival, C.; Fanucchi, T.; Gorini, G.; Pacifici, R.; Odone, A.; Serafini, G.; Gallus, S. COVID-19 Lockdown Impact on Mental Health in a Large Representative Sample of Italian Adults. J. Affect. Disord. 2021, 292, 398–404. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Nobari, H.; Fashi, M.; Eskandari, A.; Villafaina, S.; Murillo-Garcia, Á.; Pérez-Gómez, J. Effect of COVID-19 on Health-Related Quality of Life in Adolescents and Children: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Bueno-Notivol, J.; Gracia-García, P.; Olaya, B.; Lasheras, I.; López-Antón, R.; Santabárbara, J. Prevalence of Depression during the COVID-19 Outbreak: A Meta-Analysis of Community-Based Studies. Int. J. Clin. Health Psychol. 2021, 21, 100196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Mari, E.; Quaglieri, A.; Di Consiglio, M.; Couyoumdjian, A.; Cricenti, C.; Lausi, G.; Pizzo, A.; D’Amato, V.; D’Amato, S.; Vozzella, E.A.; et al. Exploring Social Bonds and Well-Being in Young Adults during and beyond the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Clin. Med. 2023, 12, 7298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Rossi, R.; Socci, V.; Talevi, D.; Mensi, S.; Niolu, C.; Pacitti, F.; Di Marco, A.; Rossi, A.; Siracusano, A.; Di Lorenzo, G. COVID-19 Pandemic and Lockdown Measures Impact on Mental Health Among the General Population in Italy. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Wróblewski, O.; Michalczyk, K.; Kozłowski, M.; Nowak, K.; Chudecka-Głaz, A.; Skwirczyńska, E. A Longitudinal Study of the Influence of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Anxiety and Stress among Medical University Students. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Ng, W.S.Y.; Ng, W.M.; Choi, E.K.Y.; Gavira, F.; Meneses, E.L.; Torres Fernández, C.; Shuk, M.; Hung, Y.; Wing, W.; Ng, M.; et al. The Impacts of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Hong Kong Nursing Students’ Mental Health and Quality of Life. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 15117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Rodríguez-Rey, R.; Garrido-Hernansaiz, H.; Collado, S. Psychological Impact of COVID-19 in Spain: Early Data Report. Psychol. Trauma 2020, 12, 550–552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Cielo, F.; Ulberg, R.; Di Giacomo, D. Psychological Impact of the COVID-19 Outbreak on Mental Health Outcomes among Youth: A Rapid Narrative Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 6067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Nearchou, F.; Flinn, C.; Niland, R.; Subramaniam, S.S.; Hennessy, E. Exploring the Impact of COVID-19 on Mental Health Outcomes in Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 8479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Batra, K.; Sharma, M.; Batra, R.; Singh, T.P.; Schvaneveldt, N. Assessing the Psychological Impact of COVID-19 among College Students: An Evidence of 15 Countries. Healthcare 2021, 9, 222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  18. World Health Organization. The World Health Organization Quality of Life (WHOQOL). Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-HIS-HSI-Rev.2012.03 (accessed on 18 March 2024).
  19. Chawla, B.; Chawla, S.; Singh, H.; Jain, R.; Arora, I. Is Coronavirus Lockdown Taking a Toll on Mental Health of Medical Students? A Study Using WHOQOL-BREF Questionnaire. J. Fam. Med. Prim. Care 2020, 9, 5261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  20. Leong Bin Abdullah, M.F.I.; Mansor, N.S.; Mohamad, M.A.; Teoh, S.H. Quality of Life and Associated Factors among University Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Cross-Sectional Study. BMJ Open 2021, 11, e048446. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Cénat, J.M.; Farahi, S.M.M.M.; Dalexis, R.D.; Darius, W.P.; Bekarkhanechi, F.M.; Poisson, H.; Broussard, C.; Ukwu, G.; Auguste, E.; Nguyen, D.D.; et al. The Global Evolution of Mental Health Problems during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Studies. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 315, 70–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Robinson, E.; Sutin, A.R.; Daly, M.; Jones, A. A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Longitudinal Cohort Studies Comparing Mental Health before versus during the COVID-19 Pandemic in 2020. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 296, 567–576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Vijayalakshmi, P.; Kathyayani, B.V.; Sreelatha, M.; Reddy, S.; Manjunatha, N.; Naveen Kumar, C.; BadaMath, S. Resilience as a Protective Factor on the Quality of Life (QoL) of Indian Nursing Students during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Arch. Psychiatr. Nurs. 2023, 42, 55–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Berdida, D.J.E.; Grande, R.A.N. Academic Stress, COVID-19 Anxiety, and Quality of Life among Nursing Students: The Mediating Role of Resilience. Int. Nurs. Rev. 2023, 70, 34–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Brown, K.W.; Goodman, R.J.; Inzlicht, M. Dispositional Mindfulness and the Attenuation of Neural Responses to Emotional Stimuli. Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci. 2013, 8, 93–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Hervás, G.; Cebolla, A.; Soler, J. Intervenciones Psicológicas Basadas En Mindfulness y Sus Beneficios: Estado Actual de La Cuestión. Clin. Salud. 2016, 27, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Brown, K.W.; Ryan, R.M. The Benefits of Being Present: Mindfulness and Its Role in Psychological Well-Being. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 2003, 84, 822–848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Conversano, C.; Di Giuseppe, M.; Miccoli, M.; Ciacchini, R.; Gemignani, A.; Orrù, G. Mindfulness, Age and Gender as Protective Factors Against Psychological Distress During COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 562965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Zhang, D.; Shen, J. Dispositional Mindfulness and Mental Health among Chinese College Students during the COVID-19 Lockdown: The Mediating Role of Self-Compassion and the Moderating Role of Gender. Front. Psychol. 2023, 13, 1072548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  30. Vos, L.M.W.; Habibović, M.; Nyklíček, I.; Smeets, T.; Mertens, G. Optimism, Mindfulness, and Resilience as Potential Protective Factors for the Mental Health Consequences of Fear of the Coronavirus. Psychiatry Res. 2021, 300, 113927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Dailey, S.F.; Parker, M.M.; Campbell, A. Social Connectedness, Mindfulness, and Coping as Protective Factors during the COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Couns. Dev. 2023, 101, 114–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  32. THE WHOQOL GROUP. Development of the World Health Organization WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment. Psychol. Med. 1998, 28, 551–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Kalfoss, M.H.; Reidunsdatter, R.J.; Klöckner, C.A.; Nilsen, M. Validation of the WHOQOL-Bref: Psychometric Properties and Normative Data for the Norwegian General Population. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2021, 19, 13. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Skevington, S.M.; Lotfy, M.; O’Connell, K.A. The World Health Organization’s WHOQOL-BREF Quality of Life Assessment: Psychometric Properties and Results of the International Field Trial. A Report from the WHOQOL Group. Qual. Life Res. 2004, 13, 299–310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Lucas-Carrasco, R. The WHO Quality of Life (WHOQOL) Questionnaire: Spanish Development and Validation Studies. Qual. Life Res. 2012, 21, 161–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oliveira, S.E.H.; Carvalho, H.; Esteves, F. Toward an Understanding of the Quality of Life Construct: Validity and Reliability of the WHOQOL-Bref in a Psychiatric Sample. Psychiatry Res. 2016, 244, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Lucas Carrasco, R. Versión Española Del WHOQOL; Ergón, D.L., Ed.; Ergón, D.L.: Madrid, Spain, 1998; ISBN 84-89834-32-6. [Google Scholar]
  38. Lucas-Carrasco, R.; Laidlaw, K.; Power, M.J. Suitability of the WHOQOL-BREF and WHOQOL-OLD for Spanish Older Adults. Aging Ment. Health 2011, 15, 595–604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Cebolla, A.; García-Palacios, A.; Soler, J.; Guillen, V.; Baños, R.; Botella, C. Psychometric Properties of the Spanish Validation of the Five Facets of Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). Eur. J. Psychiatry 2012, 26, 118–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Palmer, A.; Sesé, A.; Cajal, B.; Montaño, J.J.; Jiménez, R.; Gervilla, E. Procedures for Comparison of Two Means in Independent Groups with R. Clin. Salud. 2022, 33, 45–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis. In A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed.; Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chen, C.Y. Analysing the Quality of Life of Older Adults: Heterogeneity, COVID-19 Lockdown, and Residential Stability. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 12116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Chaves, C.; Mezei, I.; Marchena, C.; Duque, A. Perinatal Mental Health during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Longitudinal Study. Clin. Salud. 2023, 34, 71–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Vahedi, S. World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Scale (WHOQOL-BREF): Analyses of Their Item Response Theory Properties Based on the Graded Responses Model. Iran. J. Psychiatry 2010, 5, 140–153. [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu, X.; Li, J.; Zhang, Q.; Zhao, Y.; Xu, W. Being Beneficial to Self and Caregiver: The Role of Dispositional Mindfulness among Breast Cancer Patients. Support. Care Cancer 2021, 29, 239–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Villota-Tamayo, Á.; Ricco-Pérez, M.; Borrás-Sansaloni, C.; López-Navarro, E. Dispositional Mindfulness Mediates the Relationship between Psychotic Symptoms and Psychological Quality of Life. Clin. Salud. 2024, 35, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Lucas-Thompson, R.G.; Seiter, N.S.; Miller, R.L.; Crain, T.L. Does Dispositional Mindfulness Buffer the Links of Stressful Life Experiences with Adolescent Adjustment and Sleep? Stress Health 2021, 37, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Moscardini, E.H.; Robinson, A.; Gerner, J.; Tucker, R.P. Perceived Stress and Suicidal Ideation: The Role of Dispositional Mindfulness. Suicide Life Threat. Behav. 2023, 53, 776–786. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Gawrysiak, M.; Loomis, D.; Armao, M.; Gillooly, E.; Kearns, L.; Walsh, J. Mindfulness Facets Differentially Mediate the Relationship Between Adverse Childhood Experiences and Cannabis Use Severity. Mindfulness 2023, 14, 1395–1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Lorenzini, J.A.; Wong-Parodi, G.; Garfin, D.R. Associations between Mindfulness and Mental Health after Collective Trauma: Results from a Longitudinal, Representative, Probability-Based Survey. Anxiety Stress Coping 2024, 37, 361–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  51. Tomlinson, E.R.; Yousaf, O.; Vittersø, A.D.; Jones, L. Dispositional Mindfulness and Psychological Health: A Systematic Review. Mindfulness 2018, 9, 23–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Lindsay, E.K.; Creswell, J.D. Mechanisms of Mindfulness Training: Monitor and Acceptance Theory (MAT). Clin. Psychol. Rev. 2017, 51, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Errasti-Pérez, J.; Al-Halabí, S.; López-Navarro, E.; Pérez-Álvarez, M. Mindfulness: Why It May Work and Why It Is Sure to Succeed. Behav. Psychol. Psicol. Conduct. 2022, 30, 235–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Simione, L.; Saldarini, F. A Critical Review of the Monitor and Acceptance Theory of Mindfulness. Mindfulness 2023, 14, 1317–1328. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Amorós-Reche, V.; Belzunegui-Pastor, À.; Hurtado, G.; Espada, J.P. Emotional Problems in Spanish Children and Adolescents during the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review. Clin. Salud. 2022, 33, 19–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cruise, D.; Sinden, D.; Jaana, M. Older Adults’ Quality of Life in Long-Term Care: A Cross-Sectional Comparison Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic. Can. J. Aging 2023, 42, 744–753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. López-Navarro, E.; Giorgetti, D.; Errasti, J.; Al-Halabí, S. ¿El Mindfulness Disposicional Media La Relación Entre Ansiedad y Rendimiento En Un Examen? Rev. Investig. Educ. 2020, 18, 324–331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Trzcionka, A.; Włodarczyk-Sielicka, M.; Surmiak, P.; Szymańska, A.; Pohl, A.; Tanasiewicz, M. Quality of Life Assessment in Students from Polish Universities during the COVID-19 Pandemic According to WHO Quality of Life Questionnaire. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 8117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Jcm 13 02340 g001
Figure 1. Moderation effect of the FFMQ-Observe (a) and of the FFMQ-Non-judging (b) scores on the impact of year on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores.
Figure 1. Moderation effect of the FFMQ-Observe (a) and of the FFMQ-Non-judging (b) scores on the impact of year on WHOQOL-BREF Psychological scores.
Jcm 13 02340 g001
Table 1. Demographic features of the sample.
Table 1. Demographic features of the sample.
Outcome2019
(n = 111)		2020
(n = 103)		Statistics
Age (mean, SD 1)18.92 (1.44)19.9 (1.41)F = 25.66
p < 0.001
Sex (n, %)
Man22 (19.8)19 (18.4)χ2 = 0.06
p = 0.799
Woman89 (80.2)84 (81.6)
FFMQ (mean, SD)
Observe23.48 (5.86)23.58 (6.02)F = 0.02
p = 0.897
Describe24.41 (2.97)24.43 (3.14)F = 0.01
p = 0.976
Non-judging21.81 (6.11)22.13 (4.93)F = 0.17
p = 0.68
Acting with awareness 23.89 (5.48)23.95 (6.02)F = 0.01
p = 0.94
Non reactivity19.68 (4.03)19.65 (4.1)F = 0.01
p = 0.951
1 SD: standard deviation.
Table 2. ANCOVA results for the effect of year in WHOQOL-BREF scores while controlling for FFMQ scores.
Table 2. ANCOVA results for the effect of year in WHOQOL-BREF scores while controlling for FFMQ scores.
WHOQOL-BREF20192020Statistics
Mean (SD)Mean (SD)FpEta
Physical33.29 (2.14)33.02 (1.35)1.420.2350.007
Psychological27.24 (1.92)26.29 (2.28)12.30.0010.057
Social Relationships13.09 (1.47)12.38 (1.79)10.10.0020.047
Environmental34.68 (2.97)33.64 (3.86)4.810.0260.023
Table 3. Moderation analyses of the interaction between outcome (WHOQOL-BREF) and moderator (FFMQ dimensions) variables.
Table 3. Moderation analyses of the interaction between outcome (WHOQOL-BREF) and moderator (FFMQ dimensions) variables.
WHOQOL-BREFFFMQ DimensionsβIC 95%tp
PsychologicalObserve0.1160.022, 0.212.430.016
Describe0.06−0.124, 0.2450.6450.52
Non-judging0.1740.075, 0.2743.4480.001
Acting with awareness 0.069−0.029, 0.1671.3850.168
Non reactivity0.012−0.127, 0.1510.1760.861
Social Observe0.023−0.052, 0.0980.6060.545
RelationshipsDescribe−0.031−0.176, 0.115−0.4170.677
Non-judging0.058−0.024, 0.141.3830.168
Acting with awareness −0.058−0.184, 0.067−0.9170.36
Non reactivity0.036−0.074, 0.1450.6370.525
EnvironmentalObserve0.019−0.138, 0.1760.2380.812
Describe0.137−0.166, 0.440.8940.373
Non-judging−0.139−0.31, −0.032−1.5970.112
Acting with awareness 0.014−0.148, 0.1760.1760.861
Non reactivity0.046−0.184, 0.2760.3950.694
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Barone, P.; Borrás-Sansaloni, C.; Ricco-Pérez, M.; López-Navarro, E.; Navarro-Guzmán, C. The Day After: The Longitudinal Effect of COVID-19 Lockdown on Quality of Life of University Students and the Moderator Role of Mindfulness. J. Clin. Med. 2024, 13, 2340. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082340

AMA Style

Barone P, Borrás-Sansaloni C, Ricco-Pérez M, López-Navarro E, Navarro-Guzmán C. The Day After: The Longitudinal Effect of COVID-19 Lockdown on Quality of Life of University Students and the Moderator Role of Mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2024; 13(8):2340. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082340

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barone, Pamela, Carmen Borrás-Sansaloni, Marina Ricco-Pérez, Emilio López-Navarro, and Capilla Navarro-Guzmán. 2024. "The Day After: The Longitudinal Effect of COVID-19 Lockdown on Quality of Life of University Students and the Moderator Role of Mindfulness" Journal of Clinical Medicine 13, no. 8: 2340. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082340

APA Style

Barone, P., Borrás-Sansaloni, C., Ricco-Pérez, M., López-Navarro, E., & Navarro-Guzmán, C. (2024). The Day After: The Longitudinal Effect of COVID-19 Lockdown on Quality of Life of University Students and the Moderator Role of Mindfulness. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 13(8), 2340. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm13082340

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop