2020
DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22487
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Social capital and psychological distress during Colombian coronavirus disease lockdown

Abstract: This study aimed to establish the association of low social capital (SC) with psychological distress indicators. A cross-sectional study was carried out using an online questionnaire that evaluated demographic variables, social capital, perceived stress related to coronavirus disease, depression risk, insomnia risk, and suicide risk. SC was taken as an independent variable, and symptoms indicating psychological distress were considered as dependent variables. A group of 700 adults aged between 18 and 76 years … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

1
12
0
1

Year Published

2021
2021
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(14 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
1
12
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…However, this study indicated that there were 2.5 to 2.8 times more people with risk of anxiety and 1.5 to 1.9 times more people with risk of depression in the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak (from 20 May to 20 June 2020). Along the same lines, Caballero et al [50] found that during a first lockdown period, low social capital, considered as a social determinant of health, is associated with a higher risk of depression, suicide, stress, and insomnia. The results obtained are similar compared to findings reported at the beginning of the pandemic [51] and at the end of the most severe mobility restrictions [52].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…However, this study indicated that there were 2.5 to 2.8 times more people with risk of anxiety and 1.5 to 1.9 times more people with risk of depression in the first wave of the COVID-19 outbreak (from 20 May to 20 June 2020). Along the same lines, Caballero et al [50] found that during a first lockdown period, low social capital, considered as a social determinant of health, is associated with a higher risk of depression, suicide, stress, and insomnia. The results obtained are similar compared to findings reported at the beginning of the pandemic [51] and at the end of the most severe mobility restrictions [52].…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 89%
“…A total of 250 studies [285 subgroups, i.e., multiple populations, multiple tools, or multiple data points] comprising 493,475 participants from 49 countries were included in the analyses [ [43] , [44] , [45] , [46] , [47] , [48] , [49] , [50] , [51] , [52] , [53] , [54] , [55] , [56] , [57] , [58] , [59] , [60] , [61] , [62] , [63] , [64] , [65] , [66] , [67] , [68] , [69] , [70] , [71] , [72] , [73] , [74] , [75] , [76] , [77] , [78] , [79] , [80] , [81] , [82] , [83] , [84] , [85] , [86] , [87] , [88] , [89] , [90] , [91] , [92] , [93] , [94] , [95] , [96] , [97] , [98] , [99] , [100] , [101] , [102] , [103] , [104] , [105] , [106] , [10...…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“… SD 6 40 Brito-Marques et al, 2021 [ 82 ] Brazil Yes Healthcare workers [Frontline = 0%, Nurses = 0%] Cross-sectional design, N = 332, Female = 68.4%, Age = 36 years. PSQI 6 41 Caballero-Domínguez et al, 2020 [ 83 ] Colombia Yes General Population Cross-sectional design, N = 700, Female = 68%, Age = 37.1 years. AIS 8 42 Cai et al, 2020 [ 84 ] China No Healthcare workers [Frontline = 50%, Nurses = 50%] Case-Control design, N = 2346, Female = 70%, Age = 30.6 years.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Another review found psychological alterations caused by lockdown measures, limitations on social interactions, and interference with work activity (Brooks et al, 2020). Some studies have reported in the early stages of a pandemic the effects of isolation (Gammon et al, 2019) as increased prevalence of anxiety (Morgan et al, 2009;Sharma et al, 2020), depression (Abad et al, 2010;Barratt et al, 2011;Purssell et al, 2020) and post-traumatic stress (Hossain et al, 2016), as well as increased anger (Jeong et al, 2016), fear, sadness, and insomnia (Brooks et al, 2020), and a high risks of social exclusion and stigmatisation (Barratt et al, 2011;Morgan et al, 2009). Regarding the impact of COVID-19 lockdown measures on the general population's mental health, a meta-analysis comprising 12 studies reported a prevalence of 25% anxiety and 28% depression in a sample of 27,475 people (Ren et al, 2020).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%