Efecto de un proceso grupal de meditación sobre el estrés percibido y las estrategias de afrontamiento en un contexto carcelario

Abstract

<p><strong>Español</strong></p><p>La privación de libertad es un suceso que impacta los niveles de estrés y requiere estrategias de afrontamiento. En la cárcel Jorge Arturo Montero Castro de Costa Rica se implementó un proceso grupal de meditación con personas recluidas para ayudarles a sobrellevar el encarcelamiento. Para aportar evidencia científi ca sobre la efectividad de esta intervención, se realizó un estudio mixto de triangulación con modelo de convergencia. Cuantitativamente, se evaluó si la intervención generó cambios en los niveles de estrés percibido de los participantes. El diseño fue experimental con preprueba-posprueba y grupo control de lista de espera. La muestra fue de 32 hombres (16 en cada grupo). Cualitativamente, se exploró cómo infl uyó la intervención en los estilos de afrontamiento dentro del ambiente carcelario. El diseño fue un estudio de casos múltiples con muestreo intencional y se realizó una entrevista semiestructurada a cada participante del grupo de tratamiento. Además, se revisaron las consignas, los contenidos y el diseño de la intervención para evaluar su idoneidad. Los resultados cuantitativos no evidenciaron diferencias entre el grupo experimental y el grupo control; sin embargo, sobresalió la diferencia signifi cativa en la subescala cognitiva (F(1, 15) = 5.01, p = .04) entre la preprueba y la posprueba del grupo de tratamiento. En los resultados cualitativos, los participantes expresaron que con el proceso lograron utilizar estrategias como autocontrol, reevaluación positiva y distanciamiento. Sobre el diseño de la intervención, sobresalen las fortalezas; pero, se considera que la intervención puede rediseñarse al incorporar los aspectos por mejorar para maximizar los beneficios.</p><p><strong>English</strong></p><p>Because privation of liberty in jail aff ects health, a group meditation process with prisoners was implemented at the Jorge Arturo Montero Castro Institutional Care Center, in Costa Rica, to help cope with imprisonment. Due to gaps in the scientifi c approach to meditation eff ectiveness with prisoners in Costa Rica, a mixed method using convergence design and triangulation was carried out. A quantitative evaluation was made to ascertain if the meditation process generated changes in participant stress levels. A pretest–posttest experimental design with a wait-list control group was used. The sample was 32 men (16 in each group). A qualitative evaluation was made to explore how the intervention infl uenced coping in participants. Multiple case study design was used. Intentional sampling was performed, which resulted in working with 16 men of the meditation process group. Additionally, instructions, contents and design of the intervention were reviewed. Quantitatively, there were no differences between experimental group and control group on stress levels after the intervention; however, in the experimental group there was a signifi cant diff erence in the cognitive subscale (F(1, 15) = 5.01, p = .04). Qualitatively, participants expressed that they began to use strategies like self-control, positive reevaluation and taking distance from the situation. Finally, strengths were recognized in the intervention, but also that there was room for improvement in order to maximize benefi ts.</p>

Mental health intervention research in Latin American correctional settings: A scoping review

“…Thirteen studies were available in Spanish (Avendaño Castro et al, 2020; Barrientos-Low & Escaff-Silva, 2018; Baltodano Chacón & Márquez Cueva, 2014; Corchado-Vargas, 2016; Curay Banegas & Dávila Gómez, 2018; Olhaberry Huber et al, 2020; Cisternas Isla & Carreño Miranda, 2019; Livacic-Rajas et al, 2004; Mora-Arias et al, 2020; Palomino et al, 1991; Riega-Virú & Tataje-Véliz, 2020; Avello Saez et al, 2018; Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015), 11 in Portuguese (Amorim-Gaudêncio et al, 2017; Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2008, 2011; Billand & Molinier, 2017; Fortunato Costa et al, 2011; Machado das Neves et al, 2017; Figueiredo Falcomer Meneses et al, 2016; Da Silva Oliveira et al, 2010; Rodrigues, 2020; Pinheiro Said, 2019; Zambom et al, 2011) and 10 in English (Barrera-Valencia et al, 2017; Barcellos Café & do Nascimento, 2012; Capellan et al, 2022; Fortunato Costa et al, 2020; Noriega Gayol, 1995; Hutchinson et al, 2017; Mundt et al, 2019; Romero et al, 2018; Santos et al, 2010; Spence, 2019). In all, N = 24, 71% of the studies were only available in Spanish or Portuguese.…”

“…One study had a non-randomized, quasi-experimental design with intervention and control groups ( n = 48) (Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2011). There were nine cohort studies (Andretta & da Silva Da Silva Oliveira, 2008; Olhaberry Huber et al, 2020; Livacic-Rajas et al, 2004; Mora-Arias et al, 2020; Oliveira et al, 2010; Riega-Virú & Tataje-Véliz, 2020; Santos et al, 2010; Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015; Zambom et al, 2011) that reported pre- and post-test comparisons using quantitative outcomes. Thirteen studies were designed as case series with a mainly qualitative description of the intervention and the perceived changes (Amorim-Gaudêncio et al, 2017; Avendaño Castro et al, 2020; Barrientos-Low & Escaff-Silva, 2018; Billand & Facciolla Paiva, 2017; Barcellos Café & do Nascimento, 2012; Fortunato Costa et al, 2011, 2020; Noriega Gayol, 1995; Curay Banegas & Dávila Gómez, 2018; Mundt et al, 2019; Palomino et al, 1991; Rodrigues, 2020; Romero et al, 2018).…”

“…As regards the institutional context of the studies, 21 were conducted in prisons (Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2008; Avendaño Castro et al, 2020; Barrera-Valencia et al, 2017; Billand & Facciolla Paiva, 2017; Barcellos Café & do Nascimento, 2012; Baltodano Chacón & Márquez Cueva, 2014; Corchado-Vargas, 2016; Fortunato Costa et al, 2011, 2020; Noriega Gayol, 1995; Curay Banegas & Dávila Gómez, 2018; Olhaberry Huber et al, 2020; Hutchinson et al, 2017; Mora-Arias et al, 2020; Palomino et al, 1991; Riega-Virú & Tataje-Véliz, 2020; Rodrigues, 2020; Avello Saez et al, 2018; Pinheiro Said, 2019; Santos et al, 2010; Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015), two in open regime correctional centers (Amorim-Gaudêncio et al, 2017; Romero et al, 2018) and three in various settings working with persons on parole or recently released from prison (Capellan et al, 2022; Figueiredo Falcomer Meneses et al, 2016; Mundt et al, 2019). Eight studies were undertaken in non-prison educational care centers (Andretta & da Silva Oliveira, 2011; Barrientos-Low & Escaff-Silva, 2018; Machado das Neves et al, 2017; Cisternas Isla & Carreño Miranda, 2019; Livacic-Rajas et al, 2004; Da Silva Oliveira et al, 2010; Spence, 2019; Zambom et al, 2011).…”

“…Three studies were from Colombia (Avendaño Castro et al, 2020;Barrera-Valencia et al, 2017;Palomino et al, 1991) andMexico, respectively (Corchado-Vargas, 2016;Noriega Gayol, 1995;Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015). Two studies were carried out in Costa Rica (Baltodano Chacón & Márquez Cueva, 2014;Mora-Arias et al, 2020) and Trinidad and Tobago (Hutchinson et al, 2017;Spence, 2019), and one was from each of Argentina (Romero et al, 2018), Ecuador (Curay Banegas & Dávila Gómez, 2018), Peru (Riega-Virú & Tataje-Véliz, 2020) and Honduras (Capellan et al, 2022). No studies were included from the other 22 LAC countries.…”

“…One study had a non-randomized, quasi-experimental design with intervention and control groups (n = 48) . There were nine cohort studies (Andretta & da Silva Da Silva Oliveira, 2008;Olhaberry Huber et al, 2020;Livacic-Rajas et al, 2004;Mora-Arias et al, 2020;Oliveira et al, 2010;Riega-Virú & Tataje-Véliz, 2020;Santos et al, 2010;Vásquez Sosa & Sánchez Sosa, 2015;Zambom et al, 2011) that reported pre-and post-test comparisons using quantitative outcomes. Thirteen studies were designed as case series with a mainly qualitative (Tricco et al, 2018).…”