Next Article in Journal
Registered Nurses’ Experiences of End-of-Life Care in Nursing Homes of South Korea: A Qualitative Study
Previous Article in Journal
Quality of Life and Depressive Symptoms in Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implementation Patients—A Cross-Sectional Study
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Healthcare
Volume 10
Issue 11
10.3390/healthcare10112212
healthcare-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

Different Effects of Perceived Social Support on the Relationship between Perceived Stress and Depression among University Students with Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms: A Multigroup Mediation Analysis

by
Narusorn Ingkachotivanich
1,
Tinakon Wongpakaran
1,*,
Nahathai Wongpakaran
1,
Awirut Oon-Arom
1,
Nuntaporn Karawekpanyawong
1,
Trustsavin Lohanan
2 and
Thanakorn Leesawat
2
1
Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
2
Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai 50200, Thailand
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2022, 10(11), 2212; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112212
Submission received: 18 September 2022 / Revised: 26 October 2022 / Accepted: 31 October 2022 / Published: 3 November 2022
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Background: While perceived social support can mediate the relationship between perceived stress and depression, little is known about the differences between individuals with high and low borderline personality disorder symptoms (BPDS). This study aimed to investigate the associations among perceived stress, perceived social support, and depression, and compare low and high levels of BPDS. Methods. This cross-sectional analysis was a secondary analysis of data from the SI-Bord study. University students across Thailand completed a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder, the Perceived Stress Scale (PSS), the Revised Thai Multi-dimensional Scales of Perceived Social Support (MSPSS), and the Patient-Health Questionnaire (PHQ)-9. Mediation analysis using PROCESS was applied to test the direct and indirect effects of perceived stress on depression. Multigroup mediational analysis was adopted to compare low and high levels of BPDS. Results. The mean age of the 330 participants was 20.27 (SD, 1.4) and 80% were female. Significant correlations were observed between the PSS, MSPSS, and PHQ scores, with greater magnitude among the high-level BPDS group (p < 0.001). A significant direct effect on perceived stress and a significant indirect effect on depression through perceived social support were noted. Of all the sources of social support, only the significant others variable significantly differed between the two groups (p < 0.05). Conclusion. Perception of social support had a significant mediating role in perceived stress and depression. The magnitude of associations was remarkably high for individuals with high BPDS compared to those with low BPDS. Unlike those with low BPDS, all sources of social support were significant mediators between the two groups.

1. Introduction

Depression is considered an important and commonly found public health problem that leads to suicide. Evidence confirms that depression affects more than 264 million people worldwide [1]. College and university students are at risk of experiencing stress due to a variety of factors, such as pressure to study, exams, inadequate rest time, inappropriate exercise and food intake, competition, coping with family expectations, economic status, chronic illness, and use of alcohol, cigarettes or other substances [2,3,4,5]. Depression causes psychological distress, may negatively affect academic performance [6], and can result in poor quality of life [7,8,9]. The prevalence of university students reporting depression ranges from 10 to 85%, with a weighted mean of 30.6% [10], and on average, a prevalence rate of 24.4% is reported in low and middle-income countries [11].
The severest consequence of depression is suicidality. Like other populations experiencing depression, the prevalence estimates for suicidal ideation for university students range from 9.7 to 58.3%, with a 27.1% prevalence for suicidal ideation in life, 14.1% for suicidal ideation in the last year, 3.1% for attempted suicide in life [12], and 7.4 to 24.2% observed among medical students [13]. Many factors are associated with suicidality, one of which is borderline personality disorder (BPD) [14,15,16,17].
BPD is a serious mental illness characterized by the insecurity of identity and life goals, interpersonal relationships, lack of restraint, risk-taking, and emotional instability. Related studies have documented the relationship between depression and borderline personality disorder symptoms (BPDS). Insecure attachment and persistent feelings of emptiness render a feeling of depression among individuals with BPDS [18]. Over 80% of individuals with BPD experience depression leading to self-harm or suicide at least once in their lives [19].
In addition to depression, individuals with BPD are vulnerable to stress. Apart from childhood psychological trauma and a poor sense of self-ascribing sensitivity to stress, BPD has been shown to have an underlying biological abnormality. For example, patients with BPD may show a neurovegetative imbalance [20,21] and altered hypothalamus–pituitary–adrenal axis functioning [22,23]. All the abnormal biopsychological underpinnings render individuals with BPD to be liable to stress.
An inability to cope with stress could lead to depression. In other words, stress is usually perceived as a herald of depression. Perceived stress is strongly related to depression across all age ranges [24,25,26], including for university students [8,9]. It has also been well-established that high levels of stress are associated with high levels of depression [27,28,29,30].
Along the path between stress and depression, many intervening variables exist, such as coping patterns [31], particularly perceived social support [26,32]. Social support plays an important role in reducing depressive symptoms. Social support refers to the mechanisms by which interpersonal relationships presumably buffer individuals against a stressful environment [33], and is defined as the care, support, and assistance received from families, friends, and communities [34].
An effective social support system could protect adolescents and young adults from interpersonal life stress and psychological distress [35,36], and loneliness [37]. Students who perceive that they have good social support, especially from family members and friends, encounter a lower incidence and severity of depression than students who do not receive good social support [38,39,40,41,42,43,44].
The role of perceived social support as a mediator in the relationship between stress and depression has been widely studied amongst a variety of stressors [45,46,47,48] and in a variety of populations. For example, postpartum women [49], women with breast cancer [50], university graduates [51], and pregnant women [52] have all confirmed that perceived social support mediates the relationship between perceived stress and depression.
What we have yet to discover is whether these relationships exist among individuals with borderline personality disorder. To investigate this issue, the authors explored a mediation model between two groups of university students, one with low and another with high BPDS; this is because individuals with borderline personality symptoms tend to have more stress and depression, and less social support. We hypothesized that the correlation between these three variables would be stronger in the group with high-level BPDS than in the group with low-level BPDS.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

This research constituted a secondary analysis of data from the project entitled, “Development and validation of a screening instrument for BPD (SI-Bord) for use among university students” [53], which was conducted among Thai students from November to December 2019. As this study comprised a secondary analysis, ethics exemption was granted by the Ethics Committee, Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University, Thailand. The original research was approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (study code, 365/2562; date of approval, 31 October 2019).

2.2. Sample Size Calculation

We calculated the sample size for the mediation analysis using Monte Carlo Power Analysis for Indirect Effects [54]. The correlation coefficient (r) between variables was used for calculation. The previous study showed that between the PSS and PHQ-9, r was 0.722; between the PSS and MSPSS, r was −0.458; and between the MSPSS and PHQ-9, r was −0.520 [53]. The calculations yielded a sample size of 83 to exhibit a statistical power of 80%, whereas a sample size of 104 exhibited a power of 90%. Therefore, the total sample size of 330 participants in this study was promising.

2.3. Participants and Setting

All the stored data from 342 participants were initially used. These consisted of university students residing in Thailand during 2019, aged from 18 to 25 years. The exclusion criteria included those with a diagnosis of psychiatric disorders such as schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, drug or alcohol use disorder, and a record of alcohol use within 24 h of participating in the research. Figure 1 shows that only 330 participants were used for the final analysis.

2.4. Measurements

2.4.1. Screening Instrument for BPD (SI-Bord)

SI-Bord is a self-reported screening tool that assesses BPD. It consists of 5 questions, scored as 0 to 3 (0 = not at all, 1 = slightly, 2 = moderate, 3 = mostly). A high SI-Bord score indicates a high level of BPD symptoms. This research used SI-Bord ≥8, yielding a sensitivity of 75.00% (95% CI 47.6–92.7%) and specificity of 73.08% (95% CI 59.0–84.4%), to determine whether the respondent had a high level of BPDS [53]. The total scores ranged from 0 to 15, and higher scores indicated more BPD symptoms or traits. Cronbach’s alpha for the SI-Bord was 0.76.

2.4.2. 10-Item Perceived Stress Scale (PSS-10)

The PSS-10 is a self-reporting questionnaire that measures stress level. It consists of 10 questions, with a 5-point Likert scale ranging from never (0) to very often (4). Higher total scores denote higher levels of stress [55]. The Thai version of the PSS-10 demonstrates good psychometric properties [56], and a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.85 was demonstrated in the present sample.

2.4.3. Revised Thai Multi-Dimensional Scales of Perceived Social Support (r-MSPSS)

This tool is a multidimensional feeling questionnaire about three sources of social support, i.e., social support from family members, friends, and significant others (or special individuals). It consists of 12 questions, with a 7-point Likert scale ranging from very strongly disagree (0) to very strongly agree (6). Higher scores reflect higher levels of perceived social support. The Thai version demonstrated good psychometric properties [57]. The current sample exhibited a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.91.

2.4.4. Patient-Health Questionaire-9 (PHQ-9)

The PHQ-9 is a 9-item self-reporting questionnaire measuring level of depression. It consists of 9 questions with a 4-response Likert scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 3 (nearly every day). Higher total scores indicate higher levels of depressive symptoms [58]. The Thai version of the PHQ-9 showed a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.79 and a significant association between the PHQ-9 and the HAM-D [59]. A Cronbach’s alpha of 0.89 was obtained for the current sample.

2.5. Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were used for the demographic data, e.g., age and sex. Pearson’s correlation was used to find the relationship between the SI-Bord, PSS-10, r-MSPSS, and PHQ-9 scores. The hypothesized mediation model tested all significantly correlated variables to see how perceived social support influences the relationship between perceived stress and depression. The indirect effect of perceived stress on depression through perceived social support was tested. For the mediation analysis, the researchers used methods discussed by Hayes [60] to examine the relationship between perceived stress (X) and depression (Y) through perceived social support (M1) (Figures 3 and 4).
A mediation model was analyzed using IBM SPSS 22 and macro-PROCESS, Version 4.0 [61]. As suggested when conducting mediation analysis, 5000 bootstrap resampling and the product of coefficients were performed [50]. Unstandardized regression coefficients (B) and p-values were reported for the direct effect coefficients and bootstrap confidence intervals were reported for conditional indirect effects. Confidence intervals that did not straddle zero were indicative of statistical significance. Multigroup mediation analysis was used to compare the mediation model between groups with or without BPD symptoms using Amos, Version 18 (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY, USA). Critical ratios for differences between pairwise parameters were calculated. MedCalc Version 19.7 (MedCalc Software, Mariakerke, Belgium) was used to create the graphs. For all the analyses, the level of significance was set at p < 0.05.

3. Results

The subjects were mostly young females; the number of years of studying ranged from 1 to 6 years. Significant differences in age, sex, and years of studying were found between the two groups (Table 1).
Figure 2 shows that perceived stress and depression were higher for the high-level BPDS group; on the contrary, the mean score for perceived social support was lower for the high-level BPDS group (all p < 0.001)
The correlation coefficients between the PSS, MSPSS, and PHQ scores were −0.459, 0.721, and −0.524 (all p < 0.01), for the PSS and MSPSS, PSS and PHQ, and MSPSS and PHQ, respectively. These correlation coefficients varied according to high and low BPDS levels. The magnitude of correlation was greater for the high-level BPDS group compared to the low-level BPDS group, as shown in Table 2.
Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the unstandardized estimation coefficients of the direct effects of perceived stress on depression and perceived social support, and the direct effect of perceived social support on depression. All path coefficients were significant (p < 0.001). The direct effect of perceived stress was reduced from B = 0.67 (c) to B = 0.55 (c′), controlling for the mediator, perceived social support. The variance for depression explained by this model was 69% for the high-level BPDS group. The same was true for low levels of BPDS; the direct effect of perceived stress was reduced from B = 0.49 (c) to B = 0.43 (c′), controlling for the mediator, perceived social support. The variance for depression explained by this model was 45%.
In the mediation analyses for each subscale of social support, i.e., significant others, family members, and friends, a similar pattern of results was found, except for the indirect effect of the model where significant others served as a mediator (B = 0.016, 95%CI = −0.001 to 0.043) (Table 3).
Comparing the path coefficients (B) between high and low levels of BPDS using multigroup analysis identified no significant critical ratios for family and friends. Only the b path (the path between significant others and depression) was significant (p < 0.05) (Table 4).

4. Discussion

This study aimed to investigate how perceived social support mediated the relationship between perceived stress and depressive symptoms when comparing two groups with high and low levels of BPDS. The main findings demonstrated that perceived social support had a significant mediating role for perceived stress and depressive symptoms. Furthermore, the magnitude of such associations was more remarkable in the high-level BPDS group than in the low-level BPDS group. These findings support our hypothesis that perceived stress and support significantly affect depression among individuals with borderline symptoms. Furthermore, regarding the specific source of social support, all were significant mediators in the high-level BPDS group.
In contrast, only friends and family members showed significance in the low-level BPDS group. These findings were confirmed by multigroup analysis, which revealed that only the mediation model, where significant others served as a mediator, differed significantly between the two groups. The results highlight the crucial role of significant others or special people for individuals with BPDS.
The mechanism by which social support is associated with decreased depression among individuals with BPDS can be explained through attachment theory [62]. Researchers have demonstrated that individuals with borderline personality disorder symptoms are likely to have preoccupied or fearful insecurity and hypersensitive reactions, making them less effective at handling interpersonal stress [63]. This evidence was notably demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic, where physical and social distancing measures were applied [64]. Such feelings of insecurity and loneliness render these individuals longing for support and emotional and social closeness. However, some individuals, especially those with fearful attachment issues, are usually reluctant to seek support from others for fear of rejection. This is based on the fact that high-level BPDS is attributed to insecure attachment derived from unfulfilled childhood experiences [65], resulting in an inability to effectively cope with stress and a striving for emotional support from surrounding people [66]. Significant others are inevitably an additional source of emotional support as family members or friends cannot usually fulfill all their emotional needs. These special people usually include seniors at university, professors, or even health care providers [67,68], who are especially sought out when individuals with high-level BPDS experience more severe depression or suicidality. Of all the personality disorders, it is evident that individuals with borderline personality disorder predominantly seek help for their major depression [17,69,70].
Another reason why special individuals are essential for students with BPDS could be because such students might be unable to obtain full support from family members due to pre-existing conflicts [65,66]. Indeed, a predisposing factor in the development of borderline personality is unempathetic parents, which leads to a feeling of insufficient support from family members. Moreover, individuals with BPDS tend to have social inhibition and poor interpersonal skills [71,72]. This makes it difficult for them to reach out to their friends for help when needed. Therefore, seeking support from special people besides family members and friends seems inevitable, whether it is actively sought out or the meeting is enforced due to severe depression or suicidality.
Related studies indicate that perceived social support tends to be negatively associated with psychiatric disorders, especially depression [38,73,74]. Regarding the source of social support, the findings of this study support other studies regarding the importance of friends and family members among young people. For example, Hadebe and Ramukumba have demonstrated that young adults who live with mental illness and enjoy support from family members and friends can cope with stressful challenges and have a better outlook for the future [43].
Inconsistent findings have been found in other related studies. For example, while the present study demonstrated that BPDS is related to the male sex, many studies have found no sex differences [75,76]. Some studies, however, have found a higher prevalence in the female sex [77,78]. In addition, the present study found that older age groups and more years of studying were related to BPDS, in contrast to some studies with younger age groups [78]. Methodological or study sample factors may be responsible for these discrepancies. Therefore, to be able to reliably compare these studies, the same measures would have needed to be used across all the studies.

4.1. Implications and Future Research

Identifying BPDS among university students is essential so that an appropriate plan, which includes sufficient social support, primarily from additional sources, besides friends and family members, can be provided. Furthermore, interventions to promote positive attributes and coping skills should be proactively implemented, especially for those with a high BPDS level, to prevent severe depression or suicidality. In addition, when an individual with a high level of borderline symptoms is identified, a support system, regardless of source, should be identified in a timely fashion. Both sides, university students and health care providers, would benefit from further research on training students to effectively access support, and training health care personnel and faculty counselors to effectively provide for students with BPDS.

4.2. Strengths and Limitations

To the best of our knowledge, this study constitutes one of the first to demonstrate the beneficial role of social support for depression among those with BPDS. However, the research has some limitations that should be addressed. Firstly, the groups were categorized using the SI-Bord cut-off criteria instead of clinical diagnosis, which can identify false-positive cases; inevitably, it was not possible to identify these types of cases in research based on an online survey. Secondly, the cross-sectional design precluded making robust conclusions regarding any causal relationship. Therefore, longitudinal mediation analysis studies are warranted. Thirdly, this study was conducted in Thailand and cultural factors might have influenced the outcomes, especially those related to social support. Therefore, replication studies in other countries are warranted. Finally, the findings cannot be generalized to all Thai university students due to the nonrandom sampling method that was used.

5. Conclusions

The present study has demonstrated that perceptions of social support, especially from significant or special people, are essential for students with BPDS. Furthermore, the relationships between perceived social support and stress, and between social support and depression are more extraordinary among those with high-level BPDS than they are among those with low-level BPDS. This novel evidence provides a guide that can help young adults to deal with depression. Future research on identifying borderline personality disorder symptoms and early social support interventions should be encouraged.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, N.I., T.W., N.K., A.O.-A., T.L. (Trustsavin Lohanan), T.L. (Thanakorn Leesawat) and N.W.; methodology, T.W. and N.W.; software, T.W. and N.W.; validation, N.I., N.K., A.O.-A., T.L. (Trustsavin Lohanan) and T.L. (Thanakorn Leesawat); formal analysis, N.I., N.W. and T.W.; investigation, N.K. and A.O.-A.; resources, N.W., T.L. (Trustsavin Lohanan) and T.L. (Thanakorn Leesawat); data curation, T.L. (Trustsavin Lohanan) and T.L. (Thanakorn Leesawat); writing—original draft preparation, all; writing—review and editing, all; visualization, N.K. and T.W.; supervision, N.W.; project administration, N.W., T.L. (Trustsavin Lohanan) and T.L. (Thanakorn Leesawat); funding acquisition, T.W. and N.I. 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 according to the guidelines of the Declaration of Helsinki and approved by the Institutional Review Board (or Ethics Committee) of the Faculty of Medicine, Chiang Mai University (study code, 365/2562; date of approval, 31 October 2019).

Informed Consent Statement

All participants provided written informed consent to the study.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets used and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to all students who participated in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. WHO. Depression. Available online: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/depression (accessed on 30 January 2022).
  2. El Ansari, W.; Vallentin-Holbech, L.; Stock, C. Predictors of illicit drug/s use among university students in Northern Ireland, Wales and England. Glob. J. Health Sci. 2014, 7, 18–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Yagmaee, F. Eight Weeks of Aerobic Exercise and Prescribed Diet (Low in Carbohydrate and High Protein) Improve Mental Health in Obese Women. Int. J. Sport Stud. Health 2021, 4, e121345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Masoomi, H.; Taheri, M.; Irandoust, K.; H’Mida, C.; Chtourou, H. The relationship of breakfast and snack foods with cognitive and academic performance and physical activity levels of adolescent students. Biol. Rhythm Res. 2020, 51, 481–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Banerjee, Y.; Akhras, A.; Khamis, A.H.; Alsheikh-Ali, A.; Davis, D. Investigating the Relationship between Resilience, Stress-Coping Strategies, and Learning Approaches to Predict Academic Performance in Undergraduate Medical Students: Protocol for a Proof-of-Concept Study. JMIR Res. Protoc. 2019, 8, e14677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Tosevski, D.L.; Milovancevic, M.P.; Gajic, S.D. Personality and psychopathology of university students. Curr. Opin. Psychiatry 2010, 23, 48–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Wongpakaran, T.; Wongpakaran, N.; Pinyopornpanish, M.; Srisutasanavong, U.; Lueboonthavatchai, P.; Nivataphand, R.; Apisiridej, N.; Petchsuwan, D.; Saisavoey, N.; Wannarit, K.; et al. Baseline characteristics of depressive disorders in Thai outpatients: Findings from the Thai Study of Affective Disorders. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat 2014, 10, 217–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  8. Çelik, N.; Ceylan, B.; Ünsal, A.; Çağan, Ö. Depression in health college students: Relationship factors and sleep quality. Psychol. Health Med. 2019, 24, 625–630. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Li, L.; Lok, G.K.I.; Mei, S.L.; Cui, X.L.; An, F.R.; Cheung, T.; Ungvari, G.S.; Xiang, Y.T. Prevalence of depression and its relationship with quality of life among university students in Macau, Hong Kong and mainland China. Sci. Rep. 2020, 10, 15798. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ibrahim, A.K.; Kelly, S.J.; Adams, C.E.; Glazebrook, C. A systematic review of studies of depression prevalence in university students. J. Psychiatr. Res. 2013, 47, 391–400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Akhtar, P.; Ma, L.; Waqas, A.; Naveed, S.; Li, Y.; Rahman, A.; Wang, Y. Prevalence of depression among university students in low and middle income countries (LMICs): A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2020, 274, 911–919. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Crispim, M.O.; Santos, C.; Frazão, I.D.S.; Frazão, C.; Albuquerque, R.C.R.; Perrelli, J.G.A. Prevalence of suicidal behavior in young university students: A systematic review with meta-analysis. Rev. Lat. Am. Enferm. 2021, 29, e3495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Rotenstein, L.S.; Ramos, M.A.; Torre, M.; Segal, J.B.; Peluso, M.J.; Guille, C.; Sen, S.; Mata, D.A. Prevalence of Depression, Depressive Symptoms, and Suicidal Ideation among Medical Students: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. JAMA 2016, 316, 2214–2236. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Chen, T.H.; Hsiao, R.C.; Liu, T.L.; Yen, C.F. Predicting effects of borderline personality symptoms and self-concept and identity disturbances on internet addiction, depression, and suicidality in college students: A prospective study. Kaohsiung J. Med. Sci. 2019, 35, 508–514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Dalbudak, E.; Evren, C.; Aldemir, S.; Evren, B. The severity of Internet addiction risk and its relationship with the severity of borderline personality features, childhood traumas, dissociative experiences, depression and anxiety symptoms among Turkish university students. Psychiatry Res. 2014, 219, 577–582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Wongpakaran, N.; Oon-Arom, A.; Karawekpanyawong, N.; Lohanan, T.; Leesawat, T.; Wongpakaran, T. Borderline Personality Symptoms: What Not to Be Overlooked When Approaching Suicidal Ideation among University Students. Healthcare 2021, 9, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Wongpakaran, N.; Wongpakaran, T.; Kittipodjanasit, A.; Chompoosri, P.; Kuntawong, P.; Wedding, D. Predictive factors for suicidal attempts: A case-control study. Perspect. Psychiatr. Care 2019, 55, 667–672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Ball, J.S.; Links, P.S. Borderline personality disorder and childhood trauma: Evidence for a causal relationship. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2009, 11, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Rao, S.; Broadbear, J. Borderline personality disorder and depressive disorder. Australas. Psychiatry 2019, 27, 573–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Weinberg, A.; Klonsky, E.D.; Hajcak, G. Autonomic impairment in borderline personality disorder: A laboratory investigation. Brain Cogn. 2009, 71, 279–286. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Koenig, J.; Kemp, A.H.; Feeling, N.R.; Thayer, J.F.; Kaess, M. Resting state vagal tone in borderline personality disorder: A meta-analysis. Prog. Neuro Psychopharmacol. Biol. Psychiatry 2016, 64, 18–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Duesenberg, M.; Wolf, O.T.; Metz, S.; Roepke, S.; Fleischer, J.; Elias, V.; Renneberg, B.; Otte, C.; Wingenfeld, K. Psychophysiological stress response and memory in borderline personality disorder. Eur. J. Psychotraumatol. 2019, 10, 1568134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Rausch, J.; Flach, E.; Panizza, A.; Brunner, R.; Herpertz, S.C.; Kaess, M.; Bertsch, K. Associations between age and cortisol awakening response in patients with borderline personality disorder. J. Neural Transm. 2021, 128, 1425–1432. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Banjongrewadee, M.; Wongpakaran, N.; Wongpakaran, T.; Pipanmekaporn, T.; Punjasawadwong, Y.; Mueankwan, S. The role of perceived stress and cognitive function on the relationship between neuroticism and depression among the elderly: A structural equation model approach. BMC Psychiatry 2020, 20, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  25. Candrian, M.; Schwartz, F.; Farabaugh, A.; Perlis, R.H.; Ehlert, U.; Fava, M. Personality disorders and perceived stress in major depressive disorder. Psychiatry Res. 2008, 160, 184–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Huang, C.-Y.; Guo, S.-E. Stress, perceived support, resourcefulness and depressive symptoms in Taiwanese adolescents. J. Clin. Nurs. 2009, 18, 3271–3279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Heinen, I.; Bullinger, M.; Kocalevent, R.D. Perceived stress in first year medical students—Associations with personal resources and emotional distress. BMC Med. Educ. 2017, 17, 4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Karyotaki, E.; Cuijpers, P.; Albor, Y.; Alonso, J.; Auerbach, R.P.; Bantjes, J.; Bruffaerts, R.; Ebert, D.D.; Hasking, P.; Kiekens, G.; et al. Sources of Stress and Their Associations with Mental Disorders among College Students: Results of the World Health Organization World Mental Health Surveys International College Student Initiative. Front. Psychol. 2020, 11, 1759. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Racic, M.; Todorovic, R.; Ivkovic, N.; Masic, S.; Joksimovic, B.; Kulic, M. Self-Perceived Stress in Relation to Anxiety, Depression and Health-related Quality of Life among Health Professions Students: A Cross-sectional Study from Bosnia and Herzegovina. Slov. J. Public Health 2017, 56, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Worku, D.; Dirriba, A.B.; Wordofa, B.; Fetensa, G. Perceived Stress, Depression, and Associated Factors among Undergraduate Health Science Students at Arsi University in 2019 in Oromia, Ethiopia. Psychiatry J. 2020, 2020, 4956234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Dunkley, D.M.; Lewkowski, M.; Lee, I.A.; Preacher, K.J.; Zuroff, D.C.; Berg, J.L.; Foley, J.E.; Myhr, G.; Westreich, R. Daily Stress, Coping, and Negative and Positive Affect in Depression: Complex Trigger and Maintenance Patterns. Behav. Ther. 2017, 48, 349–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Lee, C.S.; Goldstein, S.E.; Dik, B.J.; Rodas, J.M. Sources of social support and gender in perceived stress and individual adjustment among Latina/o college-attending emerging adults. Cult. Divers. Ethn. Minor. Psychol. 2020, 26, 134–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Cohen, S.; Wills, T.A. Stress, social support, and the buffering hypothesis. Psychol. Bull. 1985, 98, 310–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  34. Hupcey, J.E. Clarifying the social support theory-research linkage. J. Adv. Nurs. 1998, 27, 1231–1241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Mackin, D.M.; Perlman, G.; Davila, J.; Kotov, R.; Klein, D.N. Social support buffers the effect of interpersonal life stress on suicidal ideation and self-injury during adolescence. Psychol. Med. 2017, 47, 1149–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Zerach, G.; Elklit, A. Attachment and social support mediate associations between Polyvictimization and psychological distress in early adolescence. Int. J. Psychol. 2020, 55, 380–391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nazzal, F.I.; Cruz, O.; Neto, F. Psychological predictors of loneliness among Palestinian university students in the West Bank. Transcult. Psychiatry 2020, 57, 688–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Dong, Y.; Li, H. The relationship between social support and depressive symptoms among the college students of Liaoning, China: A moderated mediated analysis. Psychol. Health Med. 2020, 25, 368–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Jibeen, T. Perceived Social Support and Mental Health Problems among Pakistani University Students. Community Ment. Health J. 2016, 52, 1004–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Khallad, Y.; Jabr, F. Effects of perceived social support and family demands on college students’ mental well-being: A cross-cultural investigation. Int. J. Psychol. 2016, 51, 348–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Adams, T.R.; Rabin, L.A.; Da Silva, V.G.; Katz, M.J.; Fogel, J.; Lipton, R.B. Social Support Buffers the Impact of Depressive Symptoms on Life Satisfaction in Old Age. Clin. Gerontol. 2016, 39, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Choi, N.G.; Ha, J.H. Relationship between spouse/partner support and depressive symptoms in older adults: Gender difference. Aging Ment. Health 2011, 15, 307–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Hadebe, N.F.; Ramukumba, T.S. Resilience and social support of young adults living with mental illness in the city of Tshwane, Gauteng province, South Africa. Curationis 2020, 43, e1–e7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  44. Harrison, K.E.; Dombrovski, A.Y.; Morse, J.Q.; Houck, P.; Schlernitzauer, M.; Reynolds, C.F.; Szanto, K. Alone? Perceived social support and chronic interpersonal difficulties in suicidal elders. Int. Psychogeriatr. 2010, 22, 445–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  45. Thadani, B.; Pérez-García, A.M.; Bermúdez, J. Functional Impairment in Borderline Personality Disorder: The Mediating Role of Perceived Social Support. Front. Psychol. 2022, 13, 883833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Held, M.L.; First, J.M.; Huslage, M.; Holzer, M. Policy stress and social support: Mental health impacts for Latinx Adults in the Southeast United States. Soc. Sci. Med. 2022, 307, 115172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Zhang, M.; Wu, Y.; Ji, C.; Wu, J. The Role of Perceived Social Support and Stress in the Relationship between Hope and Depression among Chinese Shadow Education Tutors: A Serial Mediation Model. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 3348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Hu, J.; Huang, Y.; Liu, J.; Zheng, Z.; Xu, X.; Zhou, Y.; Wang, J. COVID-19 Related Stress and Mental Health Outcomes 1 Year after the Peak of the Pandemic Outbreak in China: The Mediating Effect of Resilience and Social Support. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 828379. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Leonard, K.S.; Evans, M.B.; Kjerulff, K.H.; Downs, D.S. Postpartum Perceived Stress Explains the Association between Perceived Social Support and Depressive Symptoms. Womens Health Issues 2020, 30, 231–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Zamanian, H.; Amini-Tehrani, M.; Jalali, Z.; Daryaafzoon, M.; Ala, S.; Tabrizian, S.; Foroozanfar, S. Perceived social support, coping strategies, anxiety and depression among women with breast cancer: Evaluation of a mediation model. Eur. J. Oncol. Nurs. 2021, 50, 101892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Lim, A.Y.; Lee, S.H.; Jeon, Y.; Yoo, R.; Jung, H.Y. Job-Seeking Stress, Mental Health Problems, and the Role of Perceived Social Support in University Graduates in Korea. J. Korean Med. Sci. 2018, 33, e149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Bedaso, A.; Adams, J.; Peng, W.; Sibbritt, D. The mediational role of social support in the relationship between stress and antenatal anxiety and depressive symptoms among Australian women: A mediational analysis. Reprod. Health 2021, 18, 250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Lohanan, T.; Leesawat, T.; Wongpakaran, T.; Wongpakaran, N.; Karawekpanyawong, N.; Oon-Arom, A.; Kuntawong, P. Development and validation of a screening instrument for borderline personality disorder (SI-Bord) for use among university students. BMC Psychiatry 2020, 20, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Schoemann, A.M.; Boulton, A.J.; Short, S.D. Determining Power and Sample Size for Simple and Complex Mediation Models. Soc. Psychol. Personal. Sci. 2017, 8, 379–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Cohen, S.; Kamarck, T.; Mermelstein, R. A global measure of perceived stress. J. Health Soc. Behav. 1983, 24, 386–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Wongpakaran, N.; Wongpakaran, T. The Thai version of the PSS-10: An Investigation of its psychometric properties. BioPsychoSocial Med. 2010, 4, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Zimet, G.D.; Powell, S.S.; Farley, G.K.; Werkman, S.; Berkoff, K.A. Psychometric characteristics of the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support. J. Personal. Assess. 1990, 55, 610–617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Kroenke, K.; Spitzer, R.L.; Williams, J.B. The PHQ-9: Validity of a brief depression severity measure. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 2001, 16, 606–613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Lotrakul, M.; Sumrithe, S.; Saipanish, R. Reliability and validity of the Thai version of the PHQ-9. BMC Psychiatry 2008, 8, 46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 2nd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2018; pp. 507–517. [Google Scholar]
  61. Hayes, A.F. Introduction to Mediation, Moderation, and Conditional Process Analysis: A Regression-Based Approach, 3rd ed.; The Guilford Press: New York, NY, USA, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  62. Agrawal, H.R.; Gunderson, J.; Holmes, B.M.; Lyons-Ruth, K. Attachment studies with borderline patients: A review. Harv. Rev. Psychiatry 2004, 12, 94–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Barnow, S.; Stopsack, M.; Grabe, H.; Meinke, C.; Spitzer, C.; Kronmüller, K.; Sieswerda, S. Interpersonal evaluation bias in borderline personality disorder. Behav. Res. Ther. 2009, 47, 359–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Schulze, A.; Biermann, M.; Atanasova, K.; Unterseher, F.; Winkler, L.; Bohus, M.; Lis, S. Social Touch, Social Isolation, and Loneliness in Borderline Personality Disorder during the COVID-19 Pandemic. Front. Psychiatry 2022, 13, 876413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  65. Steele, K.R.; Townsend, M.L.; Grenyer, B.F.S. Parenting and personality disorder: An overview and meta-synthesis of systematic reviews. PLoS ONE 2019, 14, e0223038. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Guilé, J.M.; Boissel, L.; Alaux-Cantin, S.; de La Rivière, S.G. Borderline personality disorder in adolescents: Prevalence, diagnosis, and treatment strategies. Adolesc. Health Med. Ther. 2018, 9, 199–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  67. Kantojärvi, L.; Hakko, H.; Riipinen, P.; Riala, K. Who is becoming personality disordered? A register-based follow-up study of 508 inpatient adolescents. Eur. Psychiatry 2016, 31, 52–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Kantojärvi, L.; Hakko, H.; Mukka, M.; Käyhkö, A.; Riipinen, P.; Riala, K. Psychotropic medication use among personality disordered young adults. A follow-up study among former adolescent psychiatric inpatients. Psychiatry Res. 2020, 293, 113449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Wongpakaran, N.; Wongpakaran, T.; Boonyanaruthee, V.; Pinyopornpanish, M.; Intaprasert, S. Comorbid personality disorders among patients with depression. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat. 2015, 11, 1091–1096. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  70. Wongpakaran, T.; Wongpakaran, N.; Boonyanaruthee, V.; Pinyopornpanish, M.; Intaprasert, S. The influence of comorbid personality disorders on recovery from depression. Neuropsychiatr. Dis. Treat 2015, 11, 725–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Fonagy, P.; Luyten, P.; Allison, E.; Campbell, C. What we have changed our minds about: Part 1. Borderline personality disorder as a limitation of resilience. Bord. Personal. Disord. Emot. Dysregul. 2017, 4, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Thoma, P.; Friedmann, C.; Suchan, B. Empathy and social problem solving in alcohol dependence, mood disorders and selected personality disorders. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 2013, 37, 448–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Du, H.; King, R.B.; Chu, S.K. Hope, social support, and depression among Hong Kong youth: Personal and relational self-esteem as mediators. Psychol. Health Med. 2016, 21, 926–931. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Mendez, I.; Sintes, A.; Pascual, J.C.; Puntí, J.; Lara, A.; Briones-Buixassa, L.; Nicolaou, S.; Schmidt, C.; Romero, S.; Fernández, M.; et al. Borderline personality traits mediate the relationship between low perceived social support and non-suicidal self-injury in a clinical sample of adolescents. J. Affect. Disord. 2022, 302, 204–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  75. Jia, N.; Sakulsriprasert, C.; Wongpakaran, N.; Suradom, C.; O’ Donnell, R. Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms and Its Clinical Correlates among Chinese University Students: A Cross-Sectional Study. Healthcare 2022, 10, 1751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Meaney, R.; Hasking, P.; Reupert, A. Prevalence of Borderline Personality Disorder in University Samples: Systematic Review, Meta-Analysis and Meta-Regression. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0155439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Cano, K.; Sumlin, E.; Sharp, C. Screening for borderline personality pathology on college campuses. Personal. Ment. Health 2022, 16, 235–243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Irfan, M.; Sethi, M.R.; Abdullah, A.S.; Saleem, U.; Zeeshan, M.F. Assessment of personality disorders in students appearing for medical school entrance examination. J. Pak. Med. Assoc. 2018, 68, 1763–1768. [Google Scholar]
Healthcare 10 02212 g001 550
Figure 1. Flow chart for the study sample size. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms. SI-Bord = screening instrument for borderline personality disorder.
Figure 1. Flow chart for the study sample size. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms. SI-Bord = screening instrument for borderline personality disorder.
Healthcare 10 02212 g001
Healthcare 10 02212 g002 550
Figure 2. Clustered bar graphs illustrating dots, means, and confidence intervals for each group using a bar chart with error bars. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms.
Figure 2. Clustered bar graphs illustrating dots, means, and confidence intervals for each group using a bar chart with error bars. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms.
Healthcare 10 02212 g002
Healthcare 10 02212 g003 550
Figure 3. Mediation model of perceived stress, social support, and depression for high levels of borderline personality symptoms. X = predictor; M = mediator; Y = outcome; a, b, c, c′ = path coefficients; c = total direct effect of perceived stress on depression; c′ = direct effect of perceived stress on depression controlling for perceived social support. Values for depression (Y) are the R-square. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 3. Mediation model of perceived stress, social support, and depression for high levels of borderline personality symptoms. X = predictor; M = mediator; Y = outcome; a, b, c, c′ = path coefficients; c = total direct effect of perceived stress on depression; c′ = direct effect of perceived stress on depression controlling for perceived social support. Values for depression (Y) are the R-square. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms. *** p < 0.001.
Healthcare 10 02212 g003
Healthcare 10 02212 g004 550
Figure 4. Mediation model of perceived stress, social support, and depression for low levels of borderline personality symptoms. X = predictor; M = mediator; Y = outcome; a, b, c, c′ = path coefficients; c = total direct effect of perceived stress on depression; c′ = direct effect of perceived stress on depression controlling for perceived social support. Values for depression (Y) are the R-square. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms. *** p < 0.001.
Figure 4. Mediation model of perceived stress, social support, and depression for low levels of borderline personality symptoms. X = predictor; M = mediator; Y = outcome; a, b, c, c′ = path coefficients; c = total direct effect of perceived stress on depression; c′ = direct effect of perceived stress on depression controlling for perceived social support. Values for depression (Y) are the R-square. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms. *** p < 0.001.
Healthcare 10 02212 g004
Table
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics (n = 330).
Table 1. Participants’ characteristics (n = 330).
VariableAll
(n = 330)		High Level of BPDS (n = 65)Low Level of
BPDS (n = 265)		Test Difference
Age20.27 ± 1.421.05 ± 1.420.08 ± 1.3t = 5.23, p < 0.001
Sex, female264 (80.0%)43 (66.2%)221 (83.4%)t = 9.70, p < 0.001
Years of studying, median (interquartile range)3(2)4(2)2 (2)χ2(1) = 31.844, p < 0.001
BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms.
Table
Table 2. Comparison of the correlation coefficients between low levels of BPDS and high levels of BPDS.
Table 2. Comparison of the correlation coefficients between low levels of BPDS and high levels of BPDS.
PSSMSPSSPHQ
PSS-−0.395 **0.645 **
MSPSS−0.428 **-−0.421 **
PHQ0.764 **−0.589 **-
The correlation coefficients among low levels of BPDS (n = 265) are in the upper quadrant; the correlation coefficients among high levels of BPDS are in the lower quadrant (n = 65). PSS = Perceived Stress Scale, MSPSS = Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, PHQ = Patient Health Questionnaire, BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms. ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 3. Summary of the indirect and indirect effects of the mediation models, adjusted for age, sex, and level of education.
Table 3. Summary of the indirect and indirect effects of the mediation models, adjusted for age, sex, and level of education.
Relationships
Perceived Stress → Perceived Social Support → Depression		Level of BPDSDirect Effect (B)
(t-Statistics)		Indirect Effect (B)Confidence IntervalR2
Lower BoundHigher Bound
TotalLow0.428(11.38) **0.056 **0.0260.1140.454
High0.553 (7.80) ***0.120 **0.0410.2400.685
SOLow0.468 (13.27) **0.016−0.0010.0430.429
High0.606 (8.98) ***0.067 **0.0050.1670.667
FMLow0.430(11.20) **0.055 **0.0160.1110.449
High0.568 (7.79) ***0.105 **0.0370.2040.667
FRLow0.442(11.80) **0.043 **0.0100.0900.446
High0.599 (8.06) ***0.074 **0.0110.1840.641
Note: Bootstrap sample = 5000 with replacement. BPDS = borderline personality disorder symptoms, SO = significant others, FM = family, FR = friends. *** p < 0.001, ** p < 0.01.
Table
Table 4. Critical ratios for differences between pairwise parameters.
Table 4. Critical ratios for differences between pairwise parameters.
Pairwise ComparisonTotalSignificant OthersFamilyFriends
a1-a20.3040.484−0.0690.252
b1-b21.6412.278 *0.9570.899
c1-c2−1.521−1.697−1.824−1.837
* p < 0.05.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ingkachotivanich, N.; Wongpakaran, T.; Wongpakaran, N.; Oon-Arom, A.; Karawekpanyawong, N.; Lohanan, T.; Leesawat, T. Different Effects of Perceived Social Support on the Relationship between Perceived Stress and Depression among University Students with Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms: A Multigroup Mediation Analysis. Healthcare 2022, 10, 2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112212

AMA Style

Ingkachotivanich N, Wongpakaran T, Wongpakaran N, Oon-Arom A, Karawekpanyawong N, Lohanan T, Leesawat T. Different Effects of Perceived Social Support on the Relationship between Perceived Stress and Depression among University Students with Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms: A Multigroup Mediation Analysis. Healthcare. 2022; 10(11):2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112212

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ingkachotivanich, Narusorn, Tinakon Wongpakaran, Nahathai Wongpakaran, Awirut Oon-Arom, Nuntaporn Karawekpanyawong, Trustsavin Lohanan, and Thanakorn Leesawat. 2022. "Different Effects of Perceived Social Support on the Relationship between Perceived Stress and Depression among University Students with Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms: A Multigroup Mediation Analysis" Healthcare 10, no. 11: 2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112212

APA Style

Ingkachotivanich, N., Wongpakaran, T., Wongpakaran, N., Oon-Arom, A., Karawekpanyawong, N., Lohanan, T., & Leesawat, T. (2022). Different Effects of Perceived Social Support on the Relationship between Perceived Stress and Depression among University Students with Borderline Personality Disorder Symptoms: A Multigroup Mediation Analysis. Healthcare, 10(11), 2212. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare10112212

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