To identify the factors associated with low psychological resilience among university students in the Grand Est region of France at the end of the first national COVID-19 lockdown.

A cross-sectional online survey was conducted (May 2020) among students at the University of Lorraine using the LimeSurvey platform and institutional mailing lists.

Higher education setting in north-eastern France, involving students from the University of Lorraine (multicampus public university) and Sciences Po Nancy, a political science institute in the same region.

A total of 3708 students fully completed the online questionnaire, including the Brief Resilience Scale (BRS), resulting in an estimated response rate of 7.1%. All students enrolled at the University of Lorraine and Sciences Po Nancy during the 2019–2020 academic year were eligible to participate.

The primary outcome was psychological resilience, measured using the BRS. Secondary measures included perceived social support assessed with the Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, quality of interpersonal relationships evaluated using the Quality of Interpersonal Relationships Scale (Échelle de la Qualité des Relations Interpersonnelles, EQRI) and frequency of positive and negative thoughts measured with the Thermometer of Thoughts Tool. Factors associated with low resilience were analysed using bivariable and multivariable logistic regression.

Among 3708 students included in the sample, corresponding to a response rate of approximately 7.1%, 50.6% had normal resilience, while 37.3% reported low resilience. Female gender (OR=2.1, 95% CI: 1.8 to 2.6) and low social support (OR=1.7, 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.6) were the factors associated most strongly with low resilience. Negative thoughts (OR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.4 to 1.5), lower quality of relationships with people in general (OR=1.5, 95% CI: 1.3 to 1.8) and studying arts, humanities or languages (OR=1.4, 95% CI: 1.0 to 1.8) were identified as factors associated with low resilience. Increased age (OR=0.9, 95% CI: 0.9 to 1.0) and flat sharing (OR=0.6, 95% CI: 0.4 to 0.9) were inversely associated with low resilience levels.

Resilience seems to be impacted primarily by internal and micro-environmental factors. Consolidating levels of individual resilience of at-risk populations by acting on these factors could be the key to improving their mental health.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) is a major public health problem, accounting for 23% of intubated patients and associated with high mortality rates. Although lifesaving, invasive mechanical ventilation can worsen lung injury when ventilator settings are poorly adjusted to lung physiology. We hypothesise that individualising ventilator settings via (1) the bedside assessment of lung recruitability using a one-breath derecruitment manoeuvre and measurement of airway opening pressure to set positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP), (2) controlling the distending pressure and (3) controlling respiratory drive improves ARDS outcomes.

The CAreful Ventilation In ARDS trial is an investigator-led multicentre (33 centres in eight countries), open-label, randomised controlled basket trial comparing two ventilation strategies in two subpopulations of moderate-to-severe ARDS: induced or not by COVID-19. A total of 740 patients will be randomised (370 in each substudy) in a 1:1 ratio to individualised ventilator settings or to using traditional PEEP to inspired fraction of oxygen tables for PEEP setting. Indications for proning and weaning strategies are similar in both arms. The primary outcome is all-cause mortality at day 60. Secondary outcomes include duration of mechanical ventilation, duration of intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital stay, organ dysfunction, barotrauma and mortality in ICU, at day 28 and in hospital.

Ethics approval has been obtained for all participating centres: Unity Health Toronto Research Ethics Board (for three centres: St Michael’s Hospital, Toronto General Hospital and Toronto Western Hospital); Comité de Ética de Investigación con Medicamentos del Hospital Universitari Vall d’Hebron; Comité de protection des personnes Ile de France III; Comité d'Ética de la Investigatción con Medicamentos de la Fundació de Gestió Sanitària del Hospital de la Santa Creu i Sant Pau; Comitato Etico—Fondazione Policlinico Gemelli; Comitato Etico di Area Vasta Emilia Centro; NYU Langone Health Institutional Review Board; Comité Ético Científico de Ciencias de la Salud; Il Comitato Etico Area 1 dell’Azienda Ospedaliero-Universitaria ‘Ospedali Riuniti’ di Foggia; HIGA ‘Eva Perón’ Comité de Bioética; Comité de Revisión Institucional del Hospital Británico Comité de Ética en Investigación; Complejo Médico Churruca-Visca Comité de Ética Biomédica; Comité de Ética SATI Comité de Ética en Investigación; Comité de Ética en Investigación del CEMIC; Comité de Ética SATI Comité de Ética en Investigación; Medical Research Ethics Committees United. Findings will be disseminated in peer review journals and conference presentations.

NCT03963622.