Neoliberal economic policies’ effects on perceptions of social justice and sociopolitical participation in Portugal

Contemporary societies challenge long-standing projects of the “good society” and social equality through neoliberal economic policies. Social forms of uncertainty generated by financial deprivation, precarity, and inequality seem to have effects on agency and coping and so socioeconomic and psychological consequences. This study aims to test these relationships, as well as a hypothesis on the potential impact of these constructs on beliefs of sociopolitical control and social dominance, which have implications for social justice. A mediation model explores the effects of financial access (the manifest benefit of work) on psychosocial uncertainty (which reflects the perception of uncertainty in the social context and the experience of its consequences within work, relationships, and the adoption of self-defeating beliefs) and on emotional coping strategies towards uncertainty, and their effects on personal agency, sociopolitical control (SPC), and social dominance orientation (SDO). Data are derived from a study of 633 participants in Portugal. Although personal agency is influenced by financial access and psychosocial uncertainty, it is not proved as a significant mediator for SPC and SDO. Nevertheless, financial access, psychosocial uncertainty, and emotional coping significantly contribute to the model, supporting the hypothesis that financial access protects against psychosocial uncertainty. Both have an impact on SPC and SDO. Therefore, financial deprivation and psychosocial uncertainty potentially contribute to extremism and populism in societies characterised by socially created forms of uncertainty. Implications of results for psychological intervention, namely in vocational/professional counselling, are discussed

Factorial validity and measurement invariance of the Psychosocial Uncertainty Scale

This study presents the development of the Psychosocial Uncertainty Scale (PS-US), which articulates the perception of uncertainty in the social context and its psychological experience. It was validated with a sample of 1596 students and active professionals (employed and unemployed). By randomly dividing this sample in three sub-samples, the following analyses were performed: exploratory factor analysis (sample one: N = 827); preliminary confirmatory factor analysis identifying the final version of the scale (sample two: N = 382); confirmatory factor analysis (sample three: N = 387). Multi-group analysis was used to assess measurement invariance, gender, sociocultural level, and group of origin invariance, by using samples two and three. Group differences were explored with the complete sample through Multiple Indicators and Multiple Causes (MIMIC) Models. Associations between this scale and the Uncertainty response Scale were explored through Structural Equation Modelling. Exploratory and confirmatory analyses’ results showed good internal consistency and overall good psychometric qualities. The scale reached full metric invariance across groups, gender, SCL level and group of origin. Results highlight the sensitivity of the scale towards social vulnerability, proving the existence of sociocultural levels’ effects on experiences of psychosocial uncertainty within working contexts, relationships and community living and self-defeating beliefs; and gender and students versus professionals’ effects on psychosocial uncertainty. Furthermore, the scale associated significantly with Uncertainty Response Scale’s dimensions, specifically with emotional uncertainty, which can be considered a self-defeating strategy. Results suggest that emotional coping strategies, are explained by psychosocial uncertainty by 57%, and so, may have social origins

Bologna guidelines for diagnosis and management of adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO)

Background: Adhesive small bowel obstruction (ASBO) is a common surgical emergency, causing high morbidity and even some mortality. The adhesions causing such bowel obstructions are typically the footprints of previous abdominal surgical procedures. The present paper presents a revised version of the Bologna guidelines to evidence-based diagnosis and treatment of ASBO. The working group has added paragraphs on prevention of ASBO and special patient groups. Methods: The guideline was written under the auspices of the World Society of Emergency Surgery by the ASBO working group. A systematic literature search was performed prior to the update of the guidelines to identify relevant new papers on epidemiology, diagnosis, and treatment of ASBO. Literature was critically appraised according to an evidence-based guideline development method. Final recommendations were approved by the workgroup, taking into account the level of evidence of the conclusion. Recommendations: Adhesion formation might be reduced by minimally invasive surgical techniques and the use of adhesion barriers. Non-operative treatment is effective in most patients with ASBO. Contraindications for non-operative treatment include peritonitis, strangulation, and ischemia. When the adhesive etiology of obstruction is unsure, or when contraindications for non-operative management might be present, CT is the diagnostic technique of choice. The principles of non-operative treatment are nil per os, naso-gastric, or long-tube decompression, and intravenous supplementation with fluids and electrolytes. When operative treatment is required, a laparoscopic approach may be beneficial for selected cases of simple ASBO. Younger patients have a higher lifetime risk for recurrent ASBO and might therefore benefit from application of adhesion barriers as both primary and secondary prevention. Discussion: This guideline presents recommendations that can be used by surgeons who treat patients with ASBO. Scientific evidence for some aspects of ASBO management is scarce, in particular aspects relating to special patient groups. Results of a randomized trial of laparoscopic versus open surgery for ASBO are awaited