Perfil psiquiátrico, cognitivo y de reconocimiento de características emocionales de un grupo de excombatientes de los grupos armados ilegales en Colombia
“…Other studies with former combatants had already shown lower scores with respect to personal distress than our sample; however, they did not show significant differences when compared with indicators of low levels of perspective taking, fantasy, and empathic concern [64]. According to the present study, in the face of high EX 2 scores in former combatants and victims, the score of perspective taking, understood as the capacity to put oneself in another's situation, was low.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 81%
“…In the case of the discriminant validity test, we also used Spearman correlation analysis for the EX 2 scale score, and IRI, measures of theoretically different domains. We expected a "weak" and "negative" correlation <0.40, since studies have shown low scores on some dimensions of empathy, such as personal distress among former combatants [21,64].…”
Section: Procedures and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the latter instruments were selected based on previous studies showing that exposure to armed conflict constitutes a risk factor for developing aggressive and violent behavior among former combatants, war veterans, and general population living in war zones [20,62]. On the other hand, studies with former combatants using IRI have shown low scores in personal distress empathic disposition [64] and an ability for the scale to identify differences in emotional Processing between ex-combatants and civilians who were not directly exposed to the armed conflict [53].…”
Psychological approaches to the study of armed conflict have focused on analyzing post-traumatic stress outcomes, and on evaluating the intensity of exposure to violent confrontation. Nevertheless, psychometrically valid tools required for measuring these traumatic experiences are scarce To validate the Extreme Experiences scale (EX 2 ) for armed conflict contexts for its use in Colombia, and to provide a framework for validation in conflict contexts around the world This Cross-sectional aims to validate the scale with 187 participants, study of validate with 187 participants, comprising population with high exposure to conflict (former combatants and a set of armed conflict victims) and low conflict-exposed individuals (control group). Structures of two domains and 18 items were confirmed: Direct Extreme Experiences (dEX 2 ) and Indirect Extreme Experiences (iEX 2 ); these dimensions were also validated by expert judgment, producing 14-item version. Good levels of internal consistency were found, with a KR-20 of 0.80 for the 18-item version, and 0.77 for the 14-item. The scale differentiates between population with 'high exposure to conflict' from population with 'low exposure' (d np > 0.5 and area under the ROC >0.90). The scale scores have significant correlation with some mental health constructs. The EX 2 scale has good internal consistency, as well as structural validity with regard to exposed groups. This scale can be potentially validated for its use in countries with armed confrontation history. In future versions, the scale may include additional items in order to improve content validity.
“…Other studies with former combatants had already shown lower scores with respect to personal distress than our sample; however, they did not show significant differences when compared with indicators of low levels of perspective taking, fantasy, and empathic concern [64]. According to the present study, in the face of high EX 2 scores in former combatants and victims, the score of perspective taking, understood as the capacity to put oneself in another's situation, was low.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 81%
“…In the case of the discriminant validity test, we also used Spearman correlation analysis for the EX 2 scale score, and IRI, measures of theoretically different domains. We expected a "weak" and "negative" correlation <0.40, since studies have shown low scores on some dimensions of empathy, such as personal distress among former combatants [21,64].…”
Section: Procedures and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Furthermore, the latter instruments were selected based on previous studies showing that exposure to armed conflict constitutes a risk factor for developing aggressive and violent behavior among former combatants, war veterans, and general population living in war zones [20,62]. On the other hand, studies with former combatants using IRI have shown low scores in personal distress empathic disposition [64] and an ability for the scale to identify differences in emotional Processing between ex-combatants and civilians who were not directly exposed to the armed conflict [53].…”
Psychological approaches to the study of armed conflict have focused on analyzing post-traumatic stress outcomes, and on evaluating the intensity of exposure to violent confrontation. Nevertheless, psychometrically valid tools required for measuring these traumatic experiences are scarce To validate the Extreme Experiences scale (EX 2 ) for armed conflict contexts for its use in Colombia, and to provide a framework for validation in conflict contexts around the world This Cross-sectional aims to validate the scale with 187 participants, study of validate with 187 participants, comprising population with high exposure to conflict (former combatants and a set of armed conflict victims) and low conflict-exposed individuals (control group). Structures of two domains and 18 items were confirmed: Direct Extreme Experiences (dEX 2 ) and Indirect Extreme Experiences (iEX 2 ); these dimensions were also validated by expert judgment, producing 14-item version. Good levels of internal consistency were found, with a KR-20 of 0.80 for the 18-item version, and 0.77 for the 14-item. The scale differentiates between population with 'high exposure to conflict' from population with 'low exposure' (d np > 0.5 and area under the ROC >0.90). The scale scores have significant correlation with some mental health constructs. The EX 2 scale has good internal consistency, as well as structural validity with regard to exposed groups. This scale can be potentially validated for its use in countries with armed confrontation history. In future versions, the scale may include additional items in order to improve content validity.
“…identificó que los militares presentaban una amplia gama polisintomática que comprendía dificultades para relacionarse, delirios de persecución, hipocondriasis, problemas de atención y síntomas graves de ansiedad y depresión. En un estudio realizado a los excombatientes de la guerra del Golfo, se registró, en la mitad de ellos, la presencia de depresión, caracterizado por pensamientos intrusivos y estados de hipervigilancia, entre otros (13) .…”
Objetivo: Determinar la prevalencia de depresión y de sus dimensiones en soldados de un batallón colombiano.
Métodos: Estudio transversal en 410 soldados a quienes se les aplicó un cuestionario de depresión. Se calcularon las prevalencias para cada dominio y para la depresión en general y la asociación con factores de interés.
Resultados: La prevalencia de depresión fue del 8,8%; las prevalencias de los dominios fueron: 11,7% para la autoestima negativa, 24,6% para la ideación suicida, 56,8% para pobre imagen social, 26,3% para afecto negativo, 23,4% para desesperanza y 19,3% para evitación.
Conclusión: Refinar los procedimientos de tamizaje en salud mental en el proceso de selección de los jóvenes soldados, para que sean desacuartelados aquellos aspirantes propensos a la depresión.
“…Combat experience is often associated to stress-induced cognitive atypical functioning and to an increase of mental health risks, such as lower quality of life perception and higher prevalence of mental disorders (Castro, Adler, McGurk, & Bliese, 2012;Godfrey et al, 2015;Weierstall, Castellanos, Neuner, & Elbert, 2013). Furthermore, diminished empathic disposition (Tobón et al, 2015;Trujillo, Trujillo, Ugarriza, et al, 2017), increase among aggressive attitude and violence (Gallaway, Fink, Millikan, & Bell, 2012;Godfrey et al, 2015;Tobón et al, 2016), and antisocial behaviour (Kaplan & Nussio, 2013) have also been informed.…”
Ex-combatants often exhibit atypical Emotional Processing (EP) such as reduced emphatic levels and higher aggressive attitudes. Social Cognitive Training (SCT) addressing socioemotional components powerfully improve social interaction among Colombian ex-combatants.However, with narrow neural evidence, this study offers a new testimony. A sample of 28 excombatants from Colombian illegal armed groups took part of this study, split into 15 for SCT and 13 for the conventional program offered by the Governmental Reintegration Route. All of them were assessed before and after the intervention with a protocol that included an EP task synchronized with electroencephalographic recordings. We drew behavioural scores and brain connectivity (Coherency) metrics from task performance. Behavioural scores yielded no significant effects. Increased post-intervention connectivity in the delta band was observed during negative emotional processing only SCT group. Positive emotions exposed distinctive gamma band connectivity that differentiate groups. These results suggest that SCT can trigger covert neurofunctional reorganization in ex-combatants embarked on the reintegration process even when overt behavioural improvements are not yet apparent. Such covert functional changes may be the neural signature of compensatory mechanisms necessary to reshape behaviours adaptively. This novel framework may inspire cutting-edge transational research at the crossing of neuroscience, sociology, and public policy-making.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.