European Journal of Investigation in Health, Psychology and Education

Cyberbullying generally reveals two leading players: the attacker side (perpetrator) and the victim side; each side has its distinctive social and psychological dynamics. In most prior empirical studies, the victim side is pivotal, as it bears the direct psychological and emotional consequences of online aggression. Recently, cyberbullying victimisation has been elevated as a main psychological concern among university students. Nevertheless, the moderating role of family support remained untested, particularly in a collectivist cultural context such as the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA). This study tested the impacts of cyberbullying victimisation on mental health consequences (anxiety, stress, and depression) among KSA university students. The study further tested family support as a moderator in these relationships. Data was collected from 650 students employing a self-structured survey. The data obtained was analyzed using “Partial Least Squares Structural Equation Modelling” (PLS-SEM). The findings revealed that cyberbullying-victimization can significantly raise students’ anxiety, stress, and depressive signs, supporting its place as a critical psychological risk factor. Contrary to the “traditional stress-buffering theory”, family support failed to alleviate the influence of cyberbullying-victimization on anxiety and stress, and unexpectedly, higher levels of family support were related to higher depressive levels, suggesting a reverse-buffering impact. These results highlighted the complicated relationships between family support and emotional outcomes in the context of digital threats. The study stressed the urgent need for culturally delicate mediations, such as training sessions for digital resilience, and colleague-based supportive systems to successfully deal with the mental health consequences of cybervictimization.

Eco-anxiety—emotional distress arising from awareness of environmental collapse—has become a critical dimension of social sustainability, linking mental well-being, professional functioning, institutional trust, and climate governance. This study investigates how higher education professionals (HEPs) experience and interpret eco-anxiety within their professional contexts, situating it as a lens on institutional legitimacy from the perspective of those who produce, teach, and steward climate knowledge. A cross-sectional mixed-methods survey of 556 HEPs was conducted across a month in 2023, combining an adapted climate anxiety scale with open-ended narratives. Quantitative analyses identified perceived governmental inadequacy as the strongest correlate of climate worry (β = 0.48, p < 0.001), accounting for 26% of the variance, whereas institutional inadequacy had a weaker effect. Qualitative findings revealed pervasive emotions of moral injury, solastalgia, and exhaustion when sustainability rhetoric outpaced genuine action, with many respondents describing governmental and institutional “betrayal.” Integrating Cognitive Appraisal Theory with concepts of moral legitimacy, the study conceptualises eco-anxiety as a relational and ethically grounded emotion reflecting the perceived misalignment between knowledge and governance. Addressing it requires transparent climate leadership, participatory governance, and organisational care infrastructures to sustain motivation and trust within universities. Eco-anxiety thus may function not only as a personal pathology but also as a psychosocial response that can illuminate HEPs’ perceptions of institutional misalignment with sustainability commitments, with implications for higher education’s contribution to the Sustainable Development Goals.

Given the scarcity of specific instruments to assess parental education in pediatric physiotherapy, this study developed the Parental Education in Physiotherapy Scale (Spanish acronym, EPF) and calculated its preliminary psychometric properties, acceptability, and feasibility. A cross-sectional instrumental study was conducted: the EPF was designed based on a specifications matrix and validated by expert judges in two phases. Then it was administered digitally to 63 physiotherapists experienced in treating children under six years of age. They rated it on a 4-point Likert response scale, and qualitative observations on its clarity, usefulness, and acceptability were collected. The validation showed adequate content validity (I-CVI ≥ 0.86; 31/32 items had I-CVI = 1.00) and high inter-judge agreement (global W = 0.659; p < 0.001). In the pilot study, exploratory factor analysis identified three factors (Collaboration, Capacity-Building, and Reflection) that explained 59% of the variance. After refining it, the final version comprised 18 items, showing high internal consistency (ordinal α = 0.944, ω = 0.934). Acceptability was high (100% found it useful; 98.4% said it facilitated reflection; 95.2% found it clear). Overall, the EPF provides preliminary evidence of validity, internal consistency, acceptability, and feasibility, although larger samples and additional analyses are required for its consolidation.