Introduction: The aims of this study were to examine the mediation effect of viral anxiety of healthcare workers on the influence of their intolerance of uncertainty on the adherence to physical distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic.Methods: An online survey was conducted among 329 healthcare workers (female: 81.4%, nursing professionals: 59.0%, and shift workers: 22.3%) on November 29, 2021. Participants responded to questionnaires on adherence to physical distancing, health beliefs, and perceived social norms, and rating scales of the Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics-6 items (SAVE-6), Patient Health Questionnaire-9 items (PHQ-9), and the Intolerance of Uncertainty-12 items (IUS-12) scale.Results: Adherence to physical distancing of healthcare workers was predicted by perceived benefits of physical distancing (β = 0.13, p = 0.01), personal injunctive norms (β = 0.32, p < 0.001), SAVE-6 score (β = 0.13, p = 0.02), and IUS-12 score (β = 0.10, p = 0.045) (adjusted R² = 0.21, F = 22.3, p < 0.001). Viral anxiety mediated the association between intolerance of uncertainty and adherence to physical distancing but not the influence of perceived benefits and personal injunctive norms on adherence to physical distancing.Conclusion: We observed that viral anxiety of healthcare workers mediated the association between intolerance of uncertainty and adherence to physical distancing. During this pandemic, exploring adherence to physical distancing and its predicting factors will be helpful for the safety of healthcare workers and the patients for whom they care.

Cyberbullying victimization (CBV) is widely linked to adolescent depression, but most studies collapse depression into a single score. Far less is known about which specific depressive symptoms track with CBV—and whether those patterns differ by gender—especially in Brazilian youth. We surveyed 268 public-school students in southern Brazil (M_age 13.4 years; 50.7% girls) using the Children’s Depression Inventory and the victimization subscale of the Revised Cyberbullying Inventory. Girls reported higher depressive symptoms overall (p < 0.05), although CBV did not differ by gender (p = 0.11). In gender-stratified analyses, CBV among girls was tied to every depression domain (anhedonia, ineffectiveness, interpersonal problems, negative mood, and negative self-esteem) as well as the total score; among boys, CBV was related only to overall depression. When domains were entered together, anhedonia and interpersonal problems uniquely signaled greater odds of any CBV for girls, whereas no single domain stood out for boys (ineffectiveness showed a modest, nonsignificant trend). Taken together, these results suggest that CBV travels with a distinct emotional–interpersonal profile for girls but aligns with general depressive burden for boys. Practically, schools and clinicians should pair universal digital-safety efforts with targeted supports—behavioral activation and peer-skills work for girls, and broad depression screening and stepped care for boys.

We aimed to explore the reliability and validity of viral anxiety rating scales (developed for the general population) among healthcare workers. In addition, we compared the psychometric properties of rating scales in accordance with the Generalized Anxiety Scale-7 items (GAD-7) during this COVID-19 pandemic. The viral anxiety of 330 healthcare workers was measured with Stress and Anxiety to Viral Epidemics—9 items (SAVE-9), SAVE-6, Coronavirus Anxiety Scale (CAS), Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S), and COVID-19 Anxiety Scale (CAS-7). Factor analyses, item response theory, and Rasch model analyses were conducted to confirm the construct validities of the scales and compare the psychometric properties of rating scales. The receiver operating curve (ROC) analysis examined the cutoff scores of rating scales in accordance with a mild degree of generalized anxiety. The SAVE-9, SAVE-6, CAS, FCV-19S, and CAS-7 scales showed good reliability of internal consistency among healthcare workers. Their construct validity and convergent validity of each scale were similarly good. Furthermore, in comparing the psychometric properties of rating scales, we observed that the CAS scale was the most discriminating and difficult among the scales. The CAS and FCV-19S provided more information and were more efficient than the SAVE-9, SAVE-6, and CAS-7 scales when they were used to measure healthcare workers’ viral anxiety. Viral anxiety rating scales can be applied to healthcare workers with good reliability and validity.