Mental disorders represent a significant public health concern among adolescents aged 10–19 years (1), and account for 13% of the global burden of diseases and injuries in this population (1). Approximately half of mental disorder cases manifest before the age of 14 and often remain unidentified and untreated (2). These conditions frequently endure for a prolonged duration, causing significant disruptions in adolescents’ ability to obtain livelihoods, access healthcare, and pursue education while also subjecting them to stigmatization, solitude, suicidal tendencies, discriminatory acts, and sexual violence. (3). The mental health disorders of adolescents often persist into adulthood, effectively constraining their potential to lead satisfying lives in their adult years (4). Additionally, it has been observed to be linked to impairments in both social functioning and academic performance, as well as an increased risk of suicide and substance abuse (5). Thus, timely mental disorders identification and treatment among adolescents play a pivotal role in their current and future performance.

COVID-19 is well-known as a threat to the health and social well-being of every affected nation. Despite experiencing a less severe manifestation of COVID-19 in comparison to adults, children and adolescents are adversely affected by the strategies implemented to mitigate the spread of the disease, including the closure of schools and isolation measures. These interventions have had an unfavorable influence on the mental health and overall well-being of children and adolescents (6). A prior literature review suggested that the prevalence rates of depression (7.2%-43.7%), anxiety (15%-78%), and stress (17.3%) were estimated to vary across geographical regions and demographic characteristics (7). The prolonged duration spent on online platforms, the implementation of distance learning, sedentary behavior, insufficient physical activity, feelings of monotony, inadequate sleep, and alterations in dietary patterns have adversely affected the self-perception of children and adolescents. Moreover, these factors have hindered their capacity to partake in age-appropriate developmental tasks while exacerbating their negative emotional states (8, 9). The consequences of the pandemic on children and adolescents include the effects of stress, neglect, and violence within the context of marital and family dynamics, which has raised apprehensions regarding the welfare of parents and other relatives (10).

Although the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in mental disorders among children and adolescents, it has also generated a need for specific actions to minimize the risk of mental disorders in these populations in future pandemics. One significant impediment to timely recognition of potential concerns is the dearth of screening instruments tailored to children and adolescents’ linguistic and everyday experiences. The Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ) has emerged as a noteworthy choice for accurately evaluating fundamental depressive symptoms in the context of epidemiological research (11). A prior study suggested a robust unidimensional structure and substantial internal consistency of the SMFQ in a study conducted within a population-based sample (12).

In Vietnam, during the COVID-19 pandemic, mental health has been widely investigated in different populations, such as general populations (13), university students (14), or health professionals (15); however, evidence on the mental health of children and adolescents are constrained. Our research question was: What was the rate of depression among adolescents in Vietnam if measured by the SMFQ instrument? What were factors potentially associated with depression among these children and adolescents? This study aimed to measure the depression of children and adolescents in Vietnam by using the SMFQ instrument and evaluate associated factors.

The main focus of this study was to gather information about depressive symptoms in adolescents through the self-reporting approach. The SMFQ instrument, consisting of 13 self-report items, was given to participants to assess their depressive symptoms over the past fortnight. Some instances of items include “I experienced feelings of misery or unhappiness” and “I had a belief that I was no longer valuable”. The items were evaluated using a Likert scale consisting of three points, where 0 represented “Not true” 1 represented “Sometimes” and 2 represented “True”. The potential overall scores ranged from 0 to 26, where higher scores indicated more severe depressive symptoms. The primary outcome of the study was the total score of depressive symptoms. A binary measure was created using the validated cut-off score (12 or higher) to evaluate the influence on caseness prevalence, indicating the presence of significant depressive symptoms (16).

The data analysis was done using STATA 15. 0 software (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). Frequency and % were used to assess qualitative variables, while mean and SD were analyzed for quantitative variables. The exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and principal component analysis (PCA) were used to determine the best structural model for the SMFQ instrument. The scree plot and parallel analysis were used to determine the number of components, eigenvalues, and proportion of variance (17). Items with a loading value ≥ 0.35 are considered relevant. The score for each factor was computed by totaling all factor items and dividing to the number of items in each factor. We used Multilevel Logistic Regression to find factors related to depressive symptoms (Yes=1, No=0). The result was presented in adjusted Odd ratios (aOR) and 95% confidence interval (CI). The Multilevel Tobit Regression model was used to assess associations between characteristics and SMFQ scores and factors’ scores. Level 1 of the model was individuals, and the level 2 was schools. The result was presented in Coefficient (Coef.) and 95%CI. The significance level was reached if p < 0.05.

Among 2378 students, the proportion of male and female students and students per grade was approximately equal. Most of the students had good study performance (67.70%). Most participants lived with both parents (91.07%) and perceived their household income was moderate (72.39%). According to SMFQ, 8.8% had depressive symptoms, and the mean SMFQ score was 4.46 (SD=5.00). The mean scores of perceived knowledge about COVID-19, perceived impacts of COVID-19 on health and perceived impacts of COVID-19-related quarantine on life were 7.00 (SD=1.97), 4.17 (SD=2.98) and 3.98 (SD=2.98), respectively (Table 1).

Table 1 Demographic characteristics, SMFQ score and perception related to COVID-19 among students.

Results of EFA show a two-factor model when analyzing the SFMQ instrument. The first factor, “Cognitive/Mood”, had eight items, with the value of Cronbach’s alpha = 0.872 and a mean score of 2.17/16 (SD=3.15). The second factor, “Somatic/Emotion”, had five items, with the value of Cronbach’s alpha = 0.763 and the mean score of 2.28/10 (SD=2.31) (Table 2).

Table 2 Factor loading of SMFQ instrument.

Table 3 shows that the scores of both factors differed across groups regarding grade, gender, academic performance and perceived household income (p<0.05). The score of the “Cognitive/Mood” factor was significantly higher in students who did not live with parents (p<0.05). Meanwhile, no difference was found among groups regarding people living with students.

Table 3 Characteristics of two factors according to different groups.

Table 4 indicates that in comparison with male students, female students had a significantly higher Cognitive/Mood score (Coef. = 1.11, 95%CI=0.88 - 1.35); Somatic/Emotion score (Coef. = 0.69, 95%CI=0.51–0.86), SMFQ score (Coef. = 1.80; 95%CI = 1.42 - 2.17) and a higher likelihood of having depression (OR=2.85, 95%C=2.04 - 4.00). Similarly, students in grade 7 and grade 8 had a significantly higher Cognitive/Mood score, Somatic/Emotion score, SMFQ score and a higher likelihood of suffering depression than those in grade 6 students.

Table 4 Factors associated with SMFQ score, subscales’ scores and depression classification.

Compared to students with very poor performance, students with poor (Coef.=-1.21, 95%CI=-2.39 - -0.04), fair (Coef.=-1.41, 95%CI=-2.54 - -0.29) or good (Coef.=-1.94, 95%CI= -3.06 - -0.83) performance had a significantly lower Cognitive/Mood score. Students with a good performance had a significantly lower SMFQ score (Coef.=-2.29, 95%CI=-4.04 - -0.54) than those with very poor performance.

Students living with parents had a lower Cognitive/Mood score (Coef.=-0.76, 95%CI=-1.14 - -0.37) and SMFQ score (Coef.= - 0.96, 95%CI = -1.56 - -0.36). Meanwhile, in comparison with students who perceived high household income, students perceiving low household income had a higher Cognitive/Mood score (Coef. = 1.11; 95%CI=0.35–1.87) and SMFQ score (Coef. = 1.53, 95%CI=0.33–2.73).

Scores in perceived impacts of COVID-19 on health and perceived impacts of COVID-19-related quarantine on life were positively correlated with Cognitive/Mood score, Somatic/Emotion score, and SMFQ score. Scores in perceived impacts of COVID-19-related quarantine on life were positively related to a higher likelihood of having depression (OR=1.30, 95%CI=1.21–1.40). Scores in perceived knowledge about COVID-19 were negatively correlated with Cognitive/Mood scores, Somatic/Emotion scores, and SMFQ scores and were associated with a lower likelihood of suffering depression.

The deleterious effects of the COVID-19 pandemic are permeating various facets of society, encompassing not only health but also the social realms (18, 19). This study aimed to ascertain the depression of Vietnamese school-aged adolescents with the impacts of COVID-19. Moreover, we found different sociodemographic characteristics and perceptions regarding COVID-19 related to the SMFQ scores.

In light of the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Vietnamese government implemented stringent measures encompassing the closure of educational institutions, the imposition of travel restrictions, the implementation of localized lockdowns, and the enforcement of quarantine protocols within the general populace (20). Control measures are commonly enforced, but variations in intensity may vary across different provinces and between rural and urban areas. This phenomenon may be attributed, at least in part, to the variation in psychological effects observed among students hailing from diverse provinces and residing in different localities. In the present study, 8.8% of students had depressive symptoms according to the SMFQ instrument. This result was in line with a previous study in China, which found that 7.18% of 7–15-year-old children experienced depressive symptoms based on SMFQ assessments (21).

In literature, SMFQ is considered to be unidimensional (22, 23). However, in the present study, based on the results of EFA, we identified two factors, namely Somatic/Emotion and Cognitive/Mood. We differentiate between emotion and mood as they represent distinct affective states (24). An emotion can be described as a transient and intense feeling that is often focused on a particular stimulus. It is common for emotions to be manifested through distinct facial expressions and body language. A mood can be characterized as a mental state of lesser intensity than an emotion, and does not invariably require a situational trigger. The duration of moods exceeds that of emotions, ranging from hours to days (24). It is noteworthy to observe that item 2 “Not enjoy”, item 7 “Poor concentration”, and item 10 “Felt lonely” are classified into the same group as “Tired” and “Restless” to form the “Somatic/Emotion” group. This may be attributed to the symptom of “Poor concentration” as students do not perceive it as a cognitive-related condition but rather as a consequence of being “tired,” thus these two symptoms tend to co-occur. On the other hand, we observed that symptoms such as “Felt lonely” or “Not enjoy” are short-term symptoms and are influenced by social environmental factors as well as somatic symptoms (25); thus, these items tend to co-occur. Meanwhile, the items within the “Cognitive/Mood” factor are cognitive problems or chronic affective states such as “Hated self” or “Unloved” (26). In the present study, we observed that the issues related to Somatic/Emotion and Cognitive/Mood were scored relatively similarly, indicating that students experienced these issues to a comparable extent, suggesting that further interventions should be warranted to address both aspects.

Despite the decreasing trend of the COVID-19 pandemic, its impact remains significant, especially for children previously affected by the pandemic. The fact that depressive symptoms were highly prevalent in children could be expected, considering the significant and unprecedented negative impact that COVID-19 has had on daily lives. Adolescents were restricted to their residences, anxiously concerned about their schooling and apprehensive about the potential of getting infected, which could cause significant financial hardships for their families (27, 28). Moreover, the excessive amount of news coverage and attention-grabbing headlines about the COVID-19 situation have unavoidably caused distress, apprehension, and unease among the general public, including young individuals (27, 28). When integrated, these factors possess the potential to influence the psychological well-being of children significantly. As students’ perceptions regarding the impact of COVID-19 on health and daily life increase, so does their corresponding score on the SMFQ scale. This demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacts the mental health of adolescents. We also observed that adolescents perceived a greater severity of impact and were more frequently subjected to the consequences of COVID-19, such as the impact on family members’ health or their parents’ employment and educational pursuits. On the other hand, adolescents who self-perceived themselves as having a good knowledge of COVID-19 exhibited lower SMFQ scores, indicating that they had prepared psychologically to cope with the pandemic. This suggests that meticulous education of students about the COVID-19 pandemic or future pandemics plays a significant role in ensuring the mental health conditions of adolescents during times of crisis.

The current study corroborated the findings of multiple prior studies regarding higher scores on measures that assess depressive symptoms in girls compared to boys (29, 30). Numerous studies have underscored the significance of vigilance toward depressive symptoms in girls, as they are associated with potential adversities in both social and academic domains (5). We also observed that students studying in higher grades or, in other words, students of higher age, were more likely to have depressive symptoms, which aligned with prior studies (21, 31, 32). It is noteworthy that there is no significant difference in the prevalence of depressive symptoms between students in grade 7 and those in grade 8 or above. This phenomenon may be attributed to the fact that sixth grade students are transitioning to a new level of education (from elementary to secondary schools) and are not yet familiar with the study methods employed in secondary school. This engenders difficulties in their learning and consequently renders them more susceptible to issues of depression compared to students in higher grades.

In addition, better academic performance was negatively related to Cognitive/Mood scores. Indeed, depression has been observed to correlate significantly with impairments in concentration, social interactions, academic achievement, and reading and writing skills. Additionally, individuals experiencing depression commonly perceive their academic responsibilities as being burdensome (33). Lower household income was also related to Cognitive/Mood scores. In literature, children from socioeconomically disadvantaged backgrounds face a heightened susceptibility to adverse health consequences, encompassing childhood mental disorders as an essential area of concern (34, 35). A prior study discovered that mental disorders exhibited a significantly higher occurrence rate of three to four times in children whose parents belonged to the lowest income percentiles as opposed to children whose parents fell within the highest income percentiles (36). The COVID-19 pandemic might reduce household income (6), which even amplified the negative impacts on the mental health of children. Furthermore, the research findings also demonstrate that students who do not live with their parents have higher cognitive and affective abilities than students who live with their parents. The aetiology of mental health problems is significantly influenced by familial factors, encompassing both life events and the intra-familial environment. This impact is acknowledged to stem from a combination of psychosocial and genetic mechanisms (37). A prior investigation demonstrated a strong association between a diminished degree of perceived parental support and an elevated likelihood of experiencing any form of mental health-related complication (38).

The present study can be credited for its notable strengths, primarily the considerable sample size employed. However, this study is deemed a primary limitation due to the absence of inclusive information on co-occurring issues. In the adolescent population, the prevalence of comorbidity between anxiety and ADHD, alongside other neuro-developmental disorders, is commonly observed and has a significant impact on long-term persistence and functional outcomes (39). Moreover, the current study did not explore potential variances in functional outcomes related to school functioning and leisure time activities. Moreover, we could not identify the cut-off points for the new subscales, given a lack of gold diagnostic standards. Further studies should be warranted to identify the optimal cut-off points of the “Cognitive/Mood” and “Somatic” domains. Finally, the cross-sectional design utilized in the current study inherently restricts the ability to explore and examine developmental trajectories.

This study holds significant practical implications. Interventions aimed at preventing depression among secondary students should prioritize measures designed to enhance understanding of COVID-19 prevention strategies and to address the adverse effects of the pandemic on students’ physical and mental well-being. Amid the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous nations and urban centers have instituted measures to enforce social distancing. Consequently, the implementation of conventional interventions to ameliorate depression among adolescents has become challenging. Priority should be given to interventions targeting students in the sixth grade, particularly those who do not reside with their parents. It is imperative to ensure that counseling services are made available to these students to enhance their readiness for the prevention of depression. During the COVID-19 pandemic, virtual counseling sessions are being increasingly utilized; nevertheless, in non-pandemic times, in-person counseling sessions should be duly considered. It is recommended that regular screening be conducted to monitor the presence of depression in students, as well as to provide timely and suitable interventions.

2. Kessler RC, Amminger GP, Aguilar-Gaxiola S, Alonso J, Lee S, Ustün TB. Age of onset of mental disorders: a review of recent literature. Curr Opin Psychiatry. (2007) 20:359–64. doi: 10.1097/YCO.0b013e32816ebc8c

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

3. World Health Organization. Mental health action plan 2013–2020. (2013). Geneva, Switzerland.

Google Scholar

4. Otto C, Reiss F, Voss C, Wüstner A, Meyrose AK, Hölling H, et al. Mental health and well-being from childhood to adulthood: design, methods and results of the 11-year follow-up of the BELLA study. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2021) 30:1559–77. doi: 10.1007/s00787–020-01630–4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

5. Birmaher B, Brent D, Bernet W, Bukstein O, Walter H, Benson RS, et al. Practice parameter for the assessment and treatment of children and adolescents with depressive disorders. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2007) 46:1503–26. doi: 10.1097/chi.0b013e318145ae1c

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

6. Ravens-Sieberer U, Kaman A, Erhart M, Devine J, Schlack R, Otto C. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on quality of life and mental health in children and adolescents in Germany. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. (2022) 31:879–89. doi: 10.1007/s00787–021-01726–5

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

7. Aarah-Bapuah M, Sarpomaa Oppong S, Ohenewaa Yawson A, Dzansi G, Adjorlolo S. Covid-19 and mental health of children and adolescents: A systematic review. Cogent Psychol. (2022) 9:2111849. doi: 10.1080/23311908.2022.2111849

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

8. Orgilés M, Morales A, Delvecchio E, Mazzeschi C, Espada JP. Immediate psychological effects of the COVID-19 quarantine in youth from Italy and Spain. Front Psychol. (2020) 11:579038. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.579038

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

9. Magson NR, Freeman JYA, Rapee RM, Richardson CE, Oar EL, Fardouly J. Risk and protective factors for prospective changes in adolescent mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Youth Adolesc. (2021) 50:44–57. doi: 10.1007/s10964–020-01332–9

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

10. Joseph SJ, Bhandari SS, Ranjitkar S, Dutta S. School closures and mental health concerns for children and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic. Psychiatr Danub. (2020) 32:309–10.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

11. Angold A, Costello E, Messer S, Pickles A, Winder F, Silver D. The development of a questionnaire for use in epidemiological studies of depression in children and adolescents. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. (1995) 5:237–49.

Google Scholar

12. Sharp C, Goodyer IM, Croudace TJ. The Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire (SMFQ): a unidimensional item response theory and categorical data factor analysis of self-report ratings from a community sample of 7-through 11-year-old children. J Abnorm Child Psychol. (2006) 34:379–91. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-9027-x

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

13. Duong NCK, Nguyen Le Bao T, Thi Lan Nguyen P, Vo Van T, Phung Lam T, Pham Gia A, et al. Psychological impacts of COVID-19 during the first nationwide lockdown in Vietnam: web-based, cross-sectional survey study. JMIR Form Res. (2020) 4:e24776. doi: 10.2196/24776

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

14. Duong CB, Van Tran N, Nguyen AH, Le TN, Ha BH, Do CNP, et al. Impacts of COVID-19 crisis and some related factors on the mental health of 37150 Vietnamese students: a cross-sectional online study. BMC Public Health. (2023) 23:445. doi: 10.1186/s12889–023-15317–3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

15. Nguyen TK, Tran NK, Bui TT, Tran LT, Tran NT, Do MT, et al. Mental health problems among front-line healthcare workers caring for COVID-19 patients in Vietnam: A mixed methods study. Front Psychol. (2022) 13:858677. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.858677

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

16. Eyre O, Bevan Jones R, Agha SS, Wootton RE, Thapar AK, Stergiakouli E, et al. Validation of the short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire in young adulthood. J Affect Disord. (2021) 294:883–8. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2021.07.090

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

17. Ledesma RD, Valero-Mora P. Determining the number of factors to retain in EFA: An easy-to-use computer program for carrying out parallel analysis. Pract Assessment Res Eval. (2019) 12:2.

Google Scholar

18. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, Woodland L, Wessely S, Greenberg N, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. (2020) 395:912–20. doi: 10.1016/s0140–6736(20)30460–8

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

19. Cao W, Fang Z, Hou G, Han M, Xu X, Dong J, et al. The psychological impact of the COVID-19 epidemic on college students in China. Psychiatry Res. (2020) 287:112934. doi: 10.1016/j.psychres.2020.112934

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

21. Ma Z, Idris S, Zhang Y, Zewen L, Wali A, Ji Y, et al. The impact of COVID-19 pandemic outbreak on education and mental health of Chinese children aged 7–15 years: an online survey. BMC Pediatr. (2021) 21:95. doi: 10.1186/s12887–021-02550–1

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

22. Turner N, Joinson C, Peters TJ, Wiles N, Lewis G. Validity of the Short Mood and Feelings Questionnaire in late adolescence. Psychol Assess. (2014) 26:752. doi: 10.1037/a0036572

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

23. Thabrew H, Stasiak K, Bavin LM, Frampton C, Merry S. Validation of the mood and feelings questionnaire (MFQ) and short mood and feelings questionnaire (SMFQ) in New Zealand help-seeking adolescents. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res. (2018) 27:e1610. doi: 10.1002/mpr.1610

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

25. Hutten E, Jongen EMM, Vos A, van den Hout A, van Lankveld J. Loneliness and mental health: the mediating effect of perceived social support. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2021) 18. doi: 10.3390/ijerph182211963

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

28. Dalton L, Rapa E, Stein A. Protecting the psychological health of children through effective communication about COVID-19. Lancet Child Adolesc Health. (2020) 4:346–7. doi: 10.1016/s2352–4642(20)30097–3

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

29. Merikangas KR, He JP, Brody D, Fisher PW, Bourdon K, Koretz DS. Prevalence and treatment of mental disorders among US children in the 2001–2004 NHANES. Pediatrics. (2010) 125:75–81. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008–2598

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

30. Joinson C, Heron J, Lewis G, Croudace T, Araya R. Timing of menarche and depressive symptoms in adolescent girls from a UK cohort. Br J Psychiatry. (2011) 198:17–23, sup 11–12. doi: 10.1192/bjp.bp.110.080861

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

32. Samji H, Wu J, Ladak A, Vossen C, Stewart E, Dove N, et al. Review: Mental health impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on children and youth - a systematic review. Child Adolesc Ment Health. (2022) 27:173–89. doi: 10.1111/camh.12501

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

33. Fröjd SA, Nissinen ES, Pelkonen MU, Marttunen MJ, Koivisto AM, Kaltiala-Heino R. Depression and school performance in middle adolescent boys and girls. J Adolesc. (2008) 31:485–98. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2007.08.006

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

34. Reiss F. Socioeconomic inequalities and mental health problems in children and adolescents: a systematic review. Soc Sci Med. (2013) 90:24–31. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.04.026

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

35. Elgar FJ, Pförtner TK, Moor I, De Clercq B, Stevens GW, Currie C. Socioeconomic inequalities in adolescent health 2002–2010: a time-series analysis of 34 countries participating in the Health Behaviour in School-aged Children study. Lancet. (2015) 385:2088–95. doi: 10.1016/s0140–6736(14)61460–4

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

36. Kinge JM, Øverland S, Flatø M, Dieleman J, Røgeberg O, Magnus MC, et al. Parental income and mental disorders in children and adolescents: prospective register-based study. Int J Epidemiol. (2021) 50:1615–27. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyab066

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

38. Macalli M, Côté S, Tzourio C. Perceived parental support in childhood and adolescence as a tool for mental health screening in students: A longitudinal study in the i-Share cohort. J Affect Disord. (2020) 266:512–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.02.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar