ABSTRACT
The interest in resilience has grown over the last few decades due to its relationships with health, well-being, and quality of life. Several instruments have been developed to measure resilience, with one of the most common being the Connor-Davidson Resilience Scale (CD-RISC). This scale has been validated in many cultures with divergent results. This paper investigates the factor structure of the CD-RISC. Participants were 3,214 students (62.1% female, mean age = 21.01, SD = 2.86) who were randomly divided into two equal subsamples (n = 1,607). One subsample was used to explore which models best fit the data and these models were fitted using the other subsample. Confirmatory factor analysis did not support the original 5-factor CD-RISC. The analyses supported unidimensional scale structures for both the 22-item and 10-item versions of the scale. The shorter instrument reduces the time needed to answer the questionnaire, allows it to be combined with other instruments, and does not require large sample sizes
El interés por el estudio de la resiliencia ha aumentado en las últimas décadas debido a su relación con la salud, el bienestar y la calidad de vida. Se han desarrollado diversos instrumentos para medir la resiliencia, siendo uno de los más comunes la Escala de Resiliencia de Connor-Davidson (CD-RISC). Esta escala ha sido validada en muchas culturas con resultados diversos. En este trabajo se analiza la estructura factorial del CD-RISC en una muestra de 3,214 estudiantes (62.1% mujeres, edad media =21.01, DT = 2.86) que fueron divididos aleatoriamente en dos submuestras iguales (n = 1,607). Se exploró en una de las submuestras qué modelos se ajustaban mejor a los datos y estos modelos fueron ajustados en la otra submuestra. El análisis factorial confirmatorio no avaló la estructura de 5 factores del CD-RISC, sino que confirmó una estructura unidimensional de 22 y de 10 items. La escala de 10 items reduce el tiempo de aplicación del cuestionario, permite combinarlo con otros instrumentos y no requiere muestras muy grandes
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Young Adult , Adult , Resilience, Psychological , Quality of Life , Social Welfare , Surveys and Questionnaires , SpainABSTRACT
Physiological and pathological processes differ in men and women, depending on factors such as sex and sociological and anthropological characteristics. However, many diseases are still approached from a masculine point of view. In this respect, ischemic heart disease is one of the diseases that most clearly reflects biological differences and social inequalities. In women, the disease presents at a more advanced age, and presentation is frequently atypical with a higher prevalence of comorbidities and greater severity. Consequently, treatment and outcome differ from those in men. Additionally, women differ in their knowledge, and beliefs regarding ischemic heart disease, as well as in their attitudes at symptom onset. Therefore, clinical practice should place significant emphasis on all these aspects in order to avoid inequalities between men and women in the correct diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation of ischemic heart disease.
Subject(s)
Myocardial Ischemia/epidemiology , Women's Health , Female , Health Services/statistics & numerical data , Humans , Incidence , Male , Myocardial Ischemia/diagnosis , Myocardial Ischemia/etiology , Myocardial Ischemia/psychology , Risk Factors , Sex Factors , SociologyABSTRACT
Tanto el sexo como los aspectos sociológicos y antropológicos relacionados con el género son factores que contribuyen a particularizar los procesos fisiológicos y patológicos de mujeres y hombres. Sin embargo, el abordaje integral de muchas enfermedades se realiza desde la perspectiva masculina. En este sentido, la cardiopatía isquémica (CI) es una de las enfermedades donde se pueden ejemplificar claramente las diferencias biológicas y las desigualdades sociales. Las mujeres presentan la enfermedad en edades más avanzadas que los hombres, la forma de aparición es más frecuentemente «atípica» y está asociada con una mayor comorbilidad y gravedad. Por tanto, el tratamiento y el pronóstico es diferente. Además, también se han observado diferencias en relación con el conocimiento y las creencias sobre la enfermedad, así como en las actitudes adoptadas cuando aparecen los primeros síntomas. Es preciso tener en cuenta todos estos aspectos biológicos y de género porque frecuentemente ocasionan desigualdades entre los hombres y las mujeres, tanto en relación con el diagnóstico certero de la CI como en el tratamiento, la prevención o la rehabilitación posterior (AU)
Physiological and pathological processes differ in men and women, depending on factors such as sex and sociological and anthropological characteristics. However, many diseases are still approached from a masculine point of view. In this respect, ischemic heart disease is one of the diseases that most clearly reflects biological differences and social inequalities. In women, the disease presents at a more advanced age, and presentation is frequently atypical with a higher prevalence of comorbidities and greater severity. Consequently, treatment and outcome differ from those in men. Additionally, women differ in their knowledge, and beliefs regarding ischemic heart disease, as well as in their attitudes at symptom onset. Therefore, clinical practice should place significant emphasis on all these aspects in order to avoid inequalities between men and women in the correct diagnosis, treatment, prevention, and rehabilitation of ischemic heart disease (AU)
