Objectives: Develop an empirically grounded measure that can be used to assess family and individual resilience in a population of older adults (aged 50–99). Methods: Cross-sectional, self-report data from 1006 older adults were analyzed in two steps. The total sample was split into two subsamples and the first step identified the underlying latent structure through principal component exploratory factor analysis (EFA). The second step utilized the second half of the sample to validate the derived latent structure through confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). Results: EFA produced an eight-factor structure that appeared clinically relevant for measuring the multidimensional nature of resilience. Factors included self-efficacy, access to social support network, optimism, perceived economic and social resources, spirituality and religiosity, relational accord, emotional expression and communication, and emotional regulation. CFA confirmed the eight-factor structure previously achieved with covariance between each of the factors. Based on these analyses we developed the multidimensional individual and interpersonal resilience measure, a broad assessment of resilience for older adults. Conclusion: This study highlights the multidimensional nature of resilience and introduces an individual and interpersonal resilience measure developed for older adults which is grounded in the individual and family resilience literature.

Literature focused on the strength of the boundary around the family system has often provided mixed advice with some suggesting a rigid boundary and others suggesting a diffuse boundary. This study argues that these conflicting findings are due to the limitation of underlying research methods. This study employs a mixed method design that incorporates qualitative data, social network analysis, and multilevel modeling to categorize family businesses into three distinct boundary strength categories. Findings from this study suggest that extremes in boundary strengths provide unique challenges for family businesses. This study also identifies the impact of various levels of boundary strength on nonfamily employees.

The goal of this study was to develop a broad, multidimensional assessment of individual, family, and community resilience for use in evaluating socioeconomic mobility programs. The Individual, Family, and Community Resilience Profile (IFCR) is a broad, multidimensional measure that evaluates multiple ecological levels of resilience. Based on a sample of 650 low-income families, this study demonstrates the initial reliability of the 75-item IFCR. This evaluation tool assesses 20 separate dimensions of constructs often associated with resilience. The IFCR provided strong reliability with interitem reliability coefficients ranging from α = .71 to.93. The IFCR also showed strong predictive abilities for education levels, employment, and mental health. We also present benchmark scaling of the IFCR for use in practice and future research.

In this study, we evaluated the status of and attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare workers in two major hospital systems (academic and private) in Southern California. Responses were collected via an anonymous and voluntary survey from a total of 2491 participants, including nurses, physicians, other allied health professionals, and administrators. Among the 2491 participants that had been offered the vaccine at the time of the study, 2103 (84%) were vaccinated. The bulk of the participants were middle-aged college-educated White (73%), non-Hispanic women (77%), and nursing was the most represented medical occupation (35%). Political affiliation, education level, and income were shown to be significant factors associated with vaccination status. Our data suggest that the current allocation of healthcare workers into dichotomous groups such as “anti-vaccine vs. pro-vaccine” may be inadequate in accurately tailoring vaccine uptake interventions. We found that healthcare workers that have yet to receive the COVID-19 vaccine likely belong to one of four categories: the misinformed, the undecided, the uninformed, or the unconcerned. This diversity in vaccine hesitancy among healthcare workers highlights the importance of targeted intervention to increase vaccine confidence. Regardless of governmental vaccine mandates, addressing the root causes contributing to vaccine hesitancy continues to be of utmost importance.

Objective: The study sought to measure the effects of caffeinated and decaffeinated coffee on affective mood, sleep, and health-related quality of life (HRQL). Methods: Forty-nine healthy participants between the ages of 18 and 45 took part in a randomized, double-blind, longitudinal study with decaffeinated coffee as the control. The participants began with a 5-day washout period, followed by a 5-day treatment phase, and concluded with a 5-day washout phase. Data were analyzed with repeated-measures analysis of covariance and ordinary least-squares mediational analysis. Results: The caffeinated coffee treatment group showed significant direct effects on sleep, anxiety, and stress-based domains of HRQL. In addition, mediational analysis showed that the more global domains of HRQL were affected indirectly through reduced sleep quality/quantity and through increases in anxiety. No significant changes were noted in the decaffeinated treatment group. Conclusions: Given the strong effect of caffeine on sleep and anxiety, as well as the indirect effect on HRQL in this study, it might be beneficial for individuals with stress responsive illnesses to refrain from high doses of caffeine. Further studies should examine the effects of caffeine in individuals with various stress-related illnesses. The results of caffeine on depression are contrary to previous studies, and further evaluations should examine variations of effects based on dosages and different populations (major depression diagnoses as well as healthy populations).