Nurturing Resilient Minds in Nursing Students: Purpose in Life, Resilience, and Personality‐Based Substance Use Risk—A Descriptive Correlational Study
Mira Naguib Abdelrazek Elfar, Heba Mahmoud Mahmoud Mohamed, Shaimaa Mohamed Elghareeb Allam, Wafa Hamad Almegewly, Mazen Baazeem, Heba Mohammed Mahmoud Elhapashy, Mahmoud Abdelwahab KhedrABSTRACT
Background
Nursing students face sustained academic and clinical stressors that may affect mental health and personality‐based substance use vulnerability. Evidence remains limited in Saudi and other Middle Eastern nursing‐student populations on whether purpose in life and resilience relate differently to the four substance use risk profile scale (SURPS) personality profiles. This distinction is relevant to profile‐specific prevention and student‐support services. The study examined relationships among a study‐specific modified Purpose in Life (PIL) score, resilience, and the four SURPS profiles and explored associations with demographic characteristics.
Methods
We conducted a descriptive correlational study with 915 undergraduate nursing students at a university in Saudi Arabia using an online English‐language survey. The PIL test was administered in a study‐specific 20‐item, 5‐point online response format rather than the conventional 7‐point semantic‐differential format; consequently, the resulting PIL score was treated as a modified within‐sample measure and not as psychometrically equivalent to the conventional PIL. SURPS was scored as four separate personality profiles with the positively worded hopelessness items reverse‐scored, and CD‐RISC‐25 responses were recoded to the standard 0–4 metric before summation.
Results
Mean scores were 60.55 ± 19.94 for the study‐specific modified PIL, 16.32 ± 4.49 for hopelessness, 13.06 ± 3.88 for anxiety sensitivity, 12.56 ± 3.75 for impulsivity, 15.36 ± 4.49 for sensation seeking, and 54.28 ± 24.60 for resilience. The modified PIL score correlated negatively with hopelessness ( r = −0.763) and positively with resilience ( r = 0.737); resilience correlated negatively with hopelessness ( r = −0.770) and positively with anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, and sensation seeking ( r = 0.688, 0.612, and 0.683, respectively; all p < 0.001). Male students had slightly higher impulsivity and sensation‐seeking scores, while age and academic‐level differences were nonsignificant. Demographic models explained very little variance ( R 2 = 0.006–0.012).
Conclusion
Corrected SURPS scoring revealed a profile‐specific pattern, but the large correlations and the use of a nonvalidated 5‐point PIL response format require cautious interpretation. Hopelessness was strongly inversely associated with the modified PIL score and resilience, whereas anxiety sensitivity, impulsivity, and sensation seeking showed positive associations whose substantive meaning cannot be separated from possible construct overlap or shared‐method effects in this cross‐sectional self‐report dataset. The findings support separate SURPS‐profile interpretation rather than an aggregate score, while replication using the conventional PIL format, culturally validated instruments, direct behavioral outcomes, and formal construct‐validity testing is needed before stronger clinical inferences are made.