ABSTRACT
El apoyo social ha sido definido como "un intercambio de recursos entre al menos dos personas, percibidas por el proveedor o el receptor con el objetivo de mejorar el bienestar del receptor". Metodología: Estudio descriptivo transversal, con una muestra de 542 individuos universitarios, mayores de 18 años, seleccionados a conveniencia. Se evaluaron características sociodemográficas, y se aplicó el cuestionario Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey. Para evaluar la estructura jerárquica se utilizó la técnica "análisis factorial exploratorio por medio del método de componentes principales", con rotación varimax, según el grado de correlación existente entre ellos. Por intermedio de la prueba de esfericidad de Bartlett se determinó el determinante de la matriz de correlaciones y la prueba de Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (válido con valores por encima de 0.5). Para estimar "confiabilidad" se usó el coeficiente omega, posterior a la consolidación de los factores. Resultados: Se obtuvo información de 510 individuos, de los cuales 263 fueron mujeres (51,6 %); la edad promedio fue 24,8, con una desviación estándar de 2,6. Se estimaron 3 factores para el análisis factorial exploratorio que explicaban el 63.559 % de la varianza. Las cargas factoriales de los ítems que componen el instrumento oscilaron entre 0,442 a 0,784. La consistencia interna por factor presentó puntajes de coeficiente, omega que fluctuaban entre 0,850 y 0,940 y un omega general de 0,920. Conclusión: La validez de constructo y la confiabilidad del cuestionario en estudiantes universitarios muestran valores aceptables; no obstante, esos resultados deben ser usados con cautela, pues es necesario desarrollar otros estudios que corroboren los resultados de nuestro estudio.
Social support is defined as "an exchange of resources between at least two people, from the provider's or the recipient's perspective aiming to improve the recipient's well-being condition». Methodology: It is a descriptive cross-sectional study which included 542 university students over 18 years of age, sampled at convenience; sociodemographic characteristics were evaluated, and we applied the Medical Outcomes Study-Social Support Survey questionnaire. To evaluate the hierarchical structure, the technique "exploratory factor analysis by means of the principal components method" was used, whit varimax rotation, according to the degree of correlation between them. The correlation matrix's determinant and the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin test (valid with values above 0.5) were established through Bartlett's sphericity test. To estimate reliability, Omega coefficient was used after factors' consolidation. Results: Information was obtained from 510 individuals, of which 263 were female (51.6 %); the average age was 24.8 with a standard deviation of S.D 2.6. Three factors were estimated for the exploratory factor analysis, explaining 63.559 % of the variance. The internal consistency by factor presented omega coefficient values ranged from 0.850 to 0.940 and an overall general omega of 0.920. Conclusion: Construct validity and reliability of the questionnaire in university students show acceptable values; However, these results should be used with caution, as further analyses should be developed corroborate our study's results.
ABSTRACT
Healthcare workers have had the longest and most direct exposure to COVID-19 and consequently may suffer from poor mental health. We conducted one of the first repeated multi-country analysis of the mental wellbeing of medical doctors (n=5,275) at two timepoints during the COVID-19 pandemic (June 2020 and November/December 2020) to understand the prevalence of anxiety and depression, as well as associated risk factors. Rates of anxiety and depression were highest in Italy (24.6% and 20.1%, June 2020), second highest in Catalonia (24.6% and 17.4%, June 2020), and lowest in the UK (11.7% and 13.7%, June 2020). Across all countries, higher risk of anxiety and depression symptoms are found among women, individuals below 60 years old, those feeling vulnerable/exposed at work, and those in poor health. We did not find systematic differences in mental health measures between the two rounds of data collection, hence we cannot discard that the mental health repercussions of the pandemic are persistent.
