Search

Some jurisdictions make some gambling products available to children. In the UK, there is no minimum age for players of category D machines, allowing children to legally play on low-stake fruit machines, coin push and crane grab machines. These products can be easily found in seaside resorts and family entertainment centres, and at least 50% of adults recollected usage of category D machines when they were children (Newall et al., 2020). Recently, Newall et al. (2021) provided evidence for the hypothesis that legal youth gambling as children is linked to adult problem gambling. The results showed that past year adult gamblers were more likely to recollect having used, and at a higher frequency, legal youth gambling products. Amongst adult gamblers, recollected usage of legal youth gambling was also associated with higher PGSI scores. However, as acknowledged by the authors, this previous study has some limitations that need to be addressed. First, the original study’s UK sample had an age range of 18-40. As the usage of legal youth gambling products was based on the participants’ recall, older adults will be less likely to accurately remember their childhood than younger adults. Also, cohort effects are possible, and there may be differences between the consumption of some legal youth gambling products nowadays and in the past. Moreover, there was an uneven gender split in that sample, which was 67.4% female (0.25% prefer not to say). To address these limitations, the present study, therefore, collects a sample of emerging adults aged 19-23 with an even gender split between female and male. Second, in the original study, participants indicated their recollected usage of youth gambling products using a five-point verbal frequency scale of: never, rarely, occasionally, frequently and very frequently. However, it could be argued that this scale may not always be interpreted as strictly increasing, some people may believe that “rarely” is not strictly less frequent than “occasionally”. Another study has used a five-point verbal frequency scale with three overlapping scale points, but where the second and third points on the scale arguable do not suffer from this issue: never, seldom, occasionally, frequently and repeatedly (Hodgins, 2001). To solve this limitation, while maximizing comparability with the original study, we use this scale: never, seldom, occasionally, frequently, very frequently. The original study also preregistered the use of log-PGSI for two of the hypothesis tests. However, analysis suggests that the log transformation was not sufficient to remove the skewness in the distribution of PGSI scores (Newall et al., 2021). Therefore, the present study plans to instead use negative binomial models for these two hypotheses tests as a better way of dealing with anticipated skew. This modelling process has been recommended by previous gambling researchers given to overcome this issue (Welte et al., 2004). Thus, the goal of the present study is to replicate previous findings by Newall et al. (2021) while overcoming noted limitations. References Hodgins, D. C. (2001). Processes of changing gambling behavior. Addictive behaviors, 26(1), 121-128. Newall, P. W., Russell, A. M., Sharman, S., & Walasek, L. (2020). Associations between recalled use of legal UK youth gambling products and adult disordered gambling. Journal of Behavioral Addictions, 9(3), 863-868. Newall, P. W., Russell, A. M., Sharman, S., & Walasek, L. (2021). Recollected usage of legal youth gambling products: Comparisons between adult gamblers and non-gamblers in the UK and Australia. Addictive Behaviors, 114, 106685. Welte, J. W., Barnes, G. M., Wieczorek, W. F., Tidwell, M. C. O., & Parker, J. C. (2004). Risk factors for pathological gambling. Addictive behaviors, 29(2), 323-335.

Objetivo: La monitorización continua de la seguridad de las vacunas COVID-19 puede aportar información adicional a los profesionales sanitarios y a la población general. El objetivo del presente estudio fue analizar los eventos adversos locales y sistémicos tras la administración de la vacuna Spikevax® (Moderna), e identificar los factores relacionados con una mayor reactogenicidad. Método: Mediante un cuestionario telefónico entrevistamos a 331 receptores de la vacuna Spikevax® (50,2% hombres; mediaedad = 46,4). Se preguntó acerca de las características de los participantes, infección previa por COVID-19 y eventos adversos locales y sistémicos en los siete días posteriores a la primera y segunda dosis de la vacuna. Resultados: El dolor en el lugar de inyección, la fatiga, y la cefalea fueron los eventos adversos más frecuentes. La prevalencia e intensidad de eventos locales fue mayor en la primera dosis, mientras que los sistémicos lo fueron en la segunda. La mayoría de los eventos adversos fueron leves/moderados; el 1,2% de los participantes necesitaron acudir a urgencias u hospitalización. Las mujeres y participantes de 18-55 años presentaron mayor probabilidad de experimentar mayor reactogenicidad, los participantes con infección previa por COVID-19 presentaron más eventos sistémicos tras la primera dosis y los participantes con enfermedades crónicas distintas de la hipertensión notificaron menos eventos adversos sistémicos tras la segunda dosis. Conclusiones: Nuestros resultados son consistentes con estudios previos, identificando a las mujeres, personas de 18-55 años y con infección previa por COVID-19 como los que mayor reactogenicidad a la vacuna experimentaron. También se encontró una relación entre la reactogenicidad y padecer alguna enfermedad cronica distinta de hipertensión. Objective: Continuous monitoring of COVID-19 vaccines safety may provide additional information to health care professionals and the general population. The aim of the present study was to analyze the local and systemic adverse events following the administration of the Spikevax® (Moderna) vaccine, and to identify the factors related to greater reactogenicity. Method: Using a telephone survey, we interviewed 331 recipient of the Spikevax® vaccine (50.2% men; Meanage = 46.4). Participants characteristics, prior COVID-19 infection and local and systemic adverse events within seven days following the first and second vaccine doses were asked. Results: Injection site pain, fatigue and headache were the most common adverse events. The prevalence and intensity of local events was higher after the first dose, while systemic events were higher in the second one. Most adverse events were mild/moderate; 1.2% of participants needed hospitalization or emergency room visit. Women and participants aged 18-55 years were more likely to experience greater reactogenicity, participants with prior COVID-19 infection had more systemic events after the first dose, and participants with chronic diseases other than hypertension reported fewer systemic adverse events following the second dose. Conclusions: Our results are consistent with previous studies, identifying women, people aged 18-55 years and those with previous COVID-19 infection as those who experienced the greatest reactogenicity to the vaccine. A relationship was also found between reactogenicity and suffering from a chronic disease other than hypertension.

Objetivo: Analizar las reacciones locales y sistémicas aparecidas tras la primera y segunda dosis de la vacuna BNT162b2 (Pfizer-BioNTech) frente a COVID-19 en una muestra de trabajadores de un hospital de tercer nivel, e identificar los factores relacionados con una mayor reactogenicidad a la vacuna. Método: Se empleó un cuestionario autoadministrado para entrevistar a 291 trabajadores de un hospital de tercer nivel que recibieron la vacuna BNT162b2 frente a COVID-19 entre enero y marzo de 2021. El cuestionario incluyó preguntas acerca de las variables sociodemográficas de los participantes, infección previa de COVID-19 y las reacciones locales y sistémicas tras la primera y segunda dosis de la vacuna. Resultados: La reacción más comúnmente informada fue el dolor en el lugar de la inyección, siendo más frecuente tras la primera dosis de la vacuna. Las reacciones sistémicas evaluadas se informaron con mayor frecuencia tras la segunda dosis de la vacuna. Las mujeres, los adultos más jóvenes y las personas con una infección previa por COVID-19 notificaron una mayor reactogenicidad. Además, una alta reactogenicidad tras la primera dosis estuvo relacionada con un mayor número de reacciones adversas tras la segunda dosis de la vacuna. Conclusiones: La distribución de la reactogenicidad en el presente estudio es consistente con los datos reportados en los estudios realizados con la vacuna BNT162b2, especialmente en términos de asociación con las características de los participantes. Estos hallazgos pueden facilitar la identificación de personas con mayor probabilidad de presentar una alta reactogenicidad a la vacuna, permitiéndonos anticipar su aparición y tratamiento. Objective: To analyze the local and systemic reactions that appeared after the first and second dose of the BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID‑19 (Pfizer-BioNTech) in a sample of workers from a tertiary hospital, and to identify the factors related to greater vaccine reactogenicity. Method: A self-administered questionnaire was used to interview 291 workers from a tertiary hospital who received the BNT162b2 vaccine against COVID-19 between January and March 2021. The questionnaire included questions about the sociodemographic variables of the participants, previous COVID-19 infection, and local and systemic reactions after the first and second dose of the vaccine. Results: The most common adverse reaction was soreness at the injection site, which was reported more frequently after the first dose of the vaccine. The systemic reactions evaluated were reported more frequently after the second dose of the vaccine. Women, younger adults, and subjects with a prior COVID-19 infection reported increased reactogenicity. Furthermore, high reactogenicity after the first dose was found to be related to a higher number of adverse reactions after the second dose of the vaccine. Conclusions: The distribution of reactogenicity in the present study is consistent with the data reported in previous studies on the BNT162b2 vaccine, especially in terms of its association with the participants’ characteristics. These findings could facilitate the identification of people at a higher risk of developing high reactogenicity to the vaccine, thereby making it possible to anticipate the appearance of adverse reactions and plan for their treatment.

Fundamentos: La emergencia socio-sanitaria provocada por la COVID-19 puede tener un importante impacto psicológico en la población. Por este motivo, resulta necesario identificar los grupos sociales especialmente vulnerables al impacto de la pandemia y los factores de protección que pueden reducirlo, lo que constituyó el objetivo de este estudio. Métodos: Mediante muestreo tipo bola de nieve, 1.596 personas residentes en España durante la cuarentena contestaron un cuestionario online que incluyó información sobre variables sociodemográficas, síntomas y contacto con la enfermedad, percepción del riesgo, conductas para prevenir el contagio y estrategias para afrontar la cuarentena. El impacto psicológico se evaluó mediante la Escala de Impacto de Evento-Revisada (IES-R), y el estado de salud mental con el Cuestionario de Salud General de Goldberg (GHQ-12). Mediante diferentes modelos de regresión lineal simple se analizó la relación de las variables del estudio con el impacto psicológico de la pandemia y la salud mental de los participantes. Resultados: El 24,7% de los participantes presentó un impacto psicológico moderado o severo y el 48,8% mostró deterioro de la salud mental. Las mujeres, los estudiantes y la población con menor nivel de ingresos económicos, además de con menos espacio disponible por persona en la vivienda, presentaron mayor impacto psicológico y peor salud mental. Convivir con personas de riesgo y prever los efectos económicos negativos de la crisis socio-sanitaria elevaron el malestar emocional y la morbilidad psíquica. Aunque las medidas para prevenir el contagio no se relacionaron con el impacto psicológico, determinadas estrategias de afrontamiento sí ayudaron a reducirlo. Conclusiones: Estos hallazgos perfilan la existencia de determinados grupos sociales especialmente sensibles al impacto de la pandemia, y sugieren líneas de acción que ayuden a reducir las secuelas psicosociales de la COVID-19., Background: The socio-health emergency caused by COVID-19 may have a significant psychological impact on the population. For this reason, it is necessary to identify especially vulnerable social groups and protective factors that may reduce this impact, which was the objective of this study. Methods: Using snowball sampling approach, 1,596 people residing in Spain during the lockdown answered an online questionnaire that included information on sociodemographic variables, symptoms, and contact with the disease, risk perception, precautionary measures to prevent infection and coping strategies during lockdown. Psychological impact was assessed using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status with the Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire (GHQ- 12). Simple linear regression models were performed to analyze the associations between the study variables and the psychological impact of the pandemic and the mental health of the participants Results: Of all respondents, 24.7% reported a moderate or severe psychological impact, and 48.8% showed mental health problems. Women, students and the population with a lower level of economic income, in addition to those having less available space per person in the household presented a more significant psychological impact and worse mental health. Living with someone from the highrisk vulnerable group, and anticipating the adverse economic effects of social-health crisis raised the emotional distress and psychological morbidity. Precautionary measures to prevent infection did not present a connection to the psychological impact of the pandemic; however, several coping strategies did help to reduce it. Conclusions: These findings outline the existence of especially vulnerable social groups to the impact of the pandemic, and suggest lines of action that help reduce the psychosocial consequences of COVID-19.

Fundamentos: La emergencia socio-sanitaria provocada por la COVID-19 puede tener un importante impacto psicológico en la población. Por este motivo, resulta necesario identificar los grupos sociales especialmente vulnerables al impacto de la pandemia y los factores de protección que pueden reducirlo, lo que constituyó el objetivo de este estudio. Métodos: Mediante muestreo tipo bola de nieve, 1.596 personas residentes en España durante la cuarentena contestaron un cuestionario online que incluyó información sobre variables sociodemográficas, síntomas y contacto con la enfermedad, percepción del riesgo, conductas para prevenir el contagio y estrategias para afrontar la cuarentena. El impacto psicológico se evaluó mediante la Escala de Impacto de Evento-Revisada (IES-R), y el estado de salud mental con el Cuestionario de Salud General de Goldberg (GHQ-12). Mediante diferentes modelos de regresión lineal simple se analizó la relación de las variables del estudio con el impacto psicológico de la pandemia y la salud mental de los participantes. Resultados: El 24,7% de los participantes presentó un impacto psicológico moderado o severo y el 48,8% mostró deterioro de la salud mental. Las mujeres, los estudiantes y la población con menor nivel de ingresos económicos, además de con menos espacio disponible por persona en la vivienda, presentaron mayor impacto psicológico y peor salud mental. Convivir con personas de riesgo y prever los efectos económicos negativos de la crisis socio-sanitaria elevaron el malestar emocional y la morbilidad psíquica. Aunque las medidas para prevenir el contagio no se relacionaron con el impacto psicológico, determinadas estrategias de afrontamiento sí ayudaron a reducirlo. Conclusiones: Estos hallazgos perfilan la existencia de determinados grupos sociales especialmente sensibles al impacto de la pandemia, y sugieren líneas de acción que ayuden a reducir las secuelas psicosociales de la COVID-19. Background: The socio-health emergency caused by COVID-19 may have a significant psychological impact on the population. For this reason, it is necessary to identify especially vulnerable social groups and protective factors that may reduce this impact, which was the objective of this study. Methods: Using snowball sampling approach, 1,596 people residing in Spain during the lockdown answered an online questionnaire that included information on sociodemographic variables, symptoms, and contact with the disease, risk perception, precautionary measures to prevent infection and coping strategies during lockdown. Psychological impact was assessed using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status with the Goldberg’s General Health Questionnaire (GHQ- 12). Simple linear regression models were performed to analyze the associations between the study variables and the psychological impact of the pandemic and the mental health of the participants Results: Of all respondents, 24.7% reported a moderate or severe psychological impact, and 48.8% showed mental health problems. Women, students and the population with a lower level of economic income, in addition to those having less available space per person in the household presented a more significant psychological impact and worse mental health. Living with someone from the highrisk vulnerable group, and anticipating the adverse economic effects of social-health crisis raised the emotional distress and psychological morbidity. Precautionary measures to prevent infection did not present a connection to the psychological impact of the pandemic; however, several coping strategies did help to reduce it. Conclusions: These findings outline the existence of especially vulnerable social groups to the impact of the pandemic, and suggest lines of action that help reduce the psychosocial consequences of COVID-19.