Search

Context: The Big Five model is a well-accepted model of personality but there is scant research on the factor structure of personality from Asian populations. It is unclear whether the Big Five personality model can account for cross-cultural variation in personality structures. Aim: To explore the factor structure of personality by analyzing the Big Five personality factors in a sample from Karnataka, South India. Settings and Design: This was a cross-structural observational study conducted in Udupi and Mangalore. Methods and Material: 400 community participants (200 women) from diverse socio economic backgrounds were recruited for the study and were assessed on either an English or Kannada version of the BFI-2-S. The reliability of the translated version of BFI-2-S was established. Statistical Analysis Used: Exploratory factor analysis using Principal Component Analysis with Varimax Rotation and Kaiser Normalization was carried out. Results: Factor Analysis revealed a four-factor and a five-factor solution that varied distinctly from the original Big Five. None of the identified factors fit into the original five factors. The four-factor solution explained 36.86% of the variance and the five-factor solution explained 41.74%. The five factors were named as -- Social Effectiveness, Interpersonal Ability, Altruism, Emotional Instability, and Innovativeness. The translated tool showed good temporal stability. Conclusions: The Five factors identified in the present study differ from the Big Five model or the General Factor of Personality. This raises questions about the cross-cultural validity of the Big Five model as well as highlighting the need to adopt more culturally adaptive methods of assessing personality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Across India, there have been multiple studies conducted to address the issues of the mental health of healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. The present study estimated the pooled prevalence of psychological morbidity among healthcare workers during the early phase of the COVID 19 pandemic in India. We searched the following electronic bibliographic databases: PubMed, ScienceDirect, Wiley online library, and Google scholar for studies conducted from the onset of the COVID 19 pandemic until 25 September 2021. The methodological quality of each study was scored and outcome measures with uniform cut off scores as per various screening measurements were evaluated. According to the current meta analysis, the pooled estimates of depression, anxiety, stress, and insomnia among Indian healthcare workers during the COVID 19 pandemic are 20.1% (95% CI: 15.6 to 24.6%; n = 21 studies), 25.0% (95% CI: 18.4 to 31.6%; n = 20 studies), 36% (95% CI: 23.7 to 48.2%; n = 22 studies) and 18.9% (95% CI: 9.9 to 28.0%; n = 6 studies) respectively. In subgroup analyses, low quality studies based on the JBI checklist (Score < 3/9) and studies using DASS 21 showed a higher pooled prevalence of depression and anxiety. About 20–36% of the healthcare workers in India reported having depression, anxiety, and stress during the early phase of the COVID 19 pandemic. The present study provides a comprehensive review of the overall burden of mental health problems among healthcare workers during the COVID 19 pandemic in India necessitating appropriate intervention strategies to protect these frontline groups before the memory of the pandemic crisis starts to fade. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: Pandemic and consequent lockdowns are likely to affect the drug market by the sudden disruption of the supply chain. We explored the change in the availability, access, purity, and pricing during lockdown from respondents seeking treatment for drugs, alcohol, and tobacco dependence. Materials and Methods: A cross-sectional survey was conducted among 404 respondents from seven treatment centers across India. A structured questionnaire assessed the change in availability, access, quality, and price of substances used during the first phase (March 24–April 14) and the second phase (April 15–May 3) of lockdown. Results: A majority of the respondents in treatment used tobacco (63%) and alcohol (52%). Relatively few respondents used opioids (45%) or cannabis (5%). Heroin (44%) was the most common opioid the respondents were treated for. Seventy-five percent, 65%, and 60% of respondents treated for alcohol, tobacco, and opioid problems, respectively, reported a reduction in the availability and access during the first phase of the lockdown. In the second phase, respondents with alcohol and tobacco dependence reported greater availability than those with opioid and cannabis dependence. The reported price of all substances increased more than 50% during the first phase of lockdown and remained higher throughout the second phase. Deterioration in purity was reported by more than half of the people who used opioid. Conclusion: Lockdown could have affected both licit and illicit drug markets, albeit to a varying degree. The observed changes seemed short-lasting, as suggested by the recovering trends during the second phase of lockdown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]