Examinando por Autor "Quevedo, Yamil"

Mostrando 1 - 2 de 2
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    Digital use of standardised assessment tools for children and adolescents: can available paper-based questionnaires be used free of charge in electronic format?
    (BioMed Central, 2022-06-03) Cottin, Marianne; Blum, Kathrin; Konjufca, Jon; Quevedo, Yamil; Kaaya, Sylvia; Behn, Alex; Schmeck, Klaus; Sharp, Carla; Zimmermann, Ronan
    Question: Most adolescents live in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC), and about 10% of them face mental problems. The mental health provision gap in low- and middle-income countries could be addressed by evidence- based practices, however costs are implementational barriers. Digitalization can improve the accessibility of these tools and constitutes a chance for LMIC to use them more easily at a low cost. We reviewed free and brief evidence- based mental health assessment tools available for digital use to assess psychopathology across different domains in youth. Methods: For the current study, instruments from a recent review on paper-based instruments were re-used. Addi- tionally, a systematic search was conducted to add instruments for the personality disorder domain. We searched and classified the copyright and license terms available from the internet in terms of free usage and deliverability in a digital format. In the case that this information was insufficient, we contacted the authors. Results: In total, we evaluated 109 instruments. Of these instruments, 53 were free and digitally usable covering 11 mental health domains. However, retrieving information on copyright and license terms was very difficult. Conclusions: Free and digitally adaptable instruments are available, supporting the strategy of using instruments digitally to increase access. The instrument’s authors support this initiative, however, the lack of copyright information and the difficulties in contacting the authors and licence holders are barriers to using this strategy in LMIC. A compre- hensive, online instrument repository for clinical practice would be an appropriate next step to make the instruments more accessible and reduce implementation barriers.
  • Miniatura
    Ítem
    “What if we get sick?”: Spanish adaptation and validation of the fear of illness and virus evaluation scale (FIVE) in a non-clinical sample exposed to the COVID-19 pandemic
    (Frontiers Media, 2021-03-11) Cottin, Marianne; Hernández, Cristóbal; Núñez, Catalina; Labbé, Nicolás; Quevedo, Yamil; Davanzo, Antonella; Behn, Alex
    Distinct sources of stress have emerged during the COVID-19 pandemic. Particularly, fear is expected to generate significant psychological burden on individuals and influence on either unsafe behavior that may hinder recovery efforts or virus-mitigating behaviors. However, little is known about the properties of measures to capture them in research and clinical settings. To resolve this gap, we evaluated the psychometric properties of a novel measure of fear of illness and viruses and tested its predictive value for future development of distress. We extracted a random sample of 450 Chilean adult participants from a large cross-sectional survey panel and invited to participate in this intensive longitudinal study for 35 days. Of these, 163 ended up enrolling in the study after the demanding nature of the measurement schedule was clearly explained to them. For this final sample, we calculated different Confirmatory Factor Analyses (CFA) to evaluate the preliminary proposed structure for the instrument. Complementarily, we conducted a content analysis of the items to qualitatively extract its latent structure, which was also subject to empirical test via CFA. Results indicated that the original structure did not fit the data well; however, the new proposed structure based on the content analysis did. Overall, the modified instrument showed good reliability through all subscales both by its internal consistency with Cronbach's alphas ranging from 0.814 to 0.913, and with test-retest correlations ranging from 0.715 to 0.804. Regarding its convergent validity, individuals who scored higher in fears tended to also score higher in depressive and posttraumatic stress symptoms at baseline. Furthermore, higher fears at baseline predicted a higher score in posttraumatic stress symptomatology 7 days later. These results provide evidence for the validity, reliability, and predictive performance of the scale. As the scale is free and multidimensional potentially not circumscribed to COVID-19, it might work as a step toward understanding the psychological impact of current and future pandemics, or further life-threatening health situations of similar characteristics. Limitations, practical implications, and future directions for research are discussed.