¿Cómo está afectando el COVID-19 la vida de los/as argentinos/as? -Reporte final

A través de la encuesta COVIDiSTRESS se evaluó el impacto psicológico de la crisis generada por el COVID-19 en más de 100 países de manera longitudinal, especialmente en el estrés. En este informe nos centramos en Argentina y recuperamos los datos de países latinoamericanos con fines comparativos. La recolección de datos se realizó de manera online entre el 30 de marzo y el 30 de mayo de 2020, pero en Argentina se extendió hasta el 7 de junio de 2020. Se definieron fases en consonancia con las fases de administración del aislamiento decretadas por el Gobierno nacional. Concretamente, las fases fueron: 1 = 30 al 31 de marzo; 2 = 1 al 12 de abril; 3 = 13 al 26 de abril; 4 = 27 de abril al 10 de mayo; 5 = 11 al 24 de mayo; y 6 = 25 de mayo al 7 de junio. Participaron 6573 personas, y fueron incluidas en los análisis 6347 dado que se aplicaron algunos criterios de exclusión. Las personas tenían entre 18 y 85 años y eran de distintos géneros (principalmente mujeres) y tenían distintas actividades laborales. Participaron personas de las 23 provincias de Argentina y de CABA, con un predominio de participantes de Córdoba (28.1%). Entre los principales resultados destacamos los siguientes: ● Las personas percibieron un nivel de estrés medio a lo largo de las distintas fases de aislamiento, con un leve incremento desde la fase 2 a la 5 y una posterior disminución en la fase 6. A mayor edad el estrés percibido fue menor. ● Las personas experimentaron niveles intermedios de soledad a lo largo de las fases consideradas, con un leve incremento desde la fase 2 a la 4, y una posterior disminución en las fases 5 y 6. ● Las principales fuentes de malestar identificadas por las personas estuvieron vinculadas a la economía del país, la situación de amigos/as y familiares que viven lejos, el riesgo de contraer el virus, la incertidumbre sobre la duración del aislamiento y las perspectivas laborales futuras. Entre las personas de 18 a 40 años se destacó la preocupación por las perspectivas laborales futuras. ● Las personas expresaron que confiaban más en instituciones como el Sistema sanitario del país y la Organización Mundial de la Salud. Luego, confiaban en el Gobierno, la Policía y la Administración pública. En todos los casos la confianza disminuyó a lo largo de las fases del aislamiento. ● Las personas valoraron como apropiadas las medidas adoptadas por el Gobierno nacional para afrontar la situación generada por el COVID-19 en términos generales, valoración que se sostuvo a lo largo de todas las fases. ● Las personas manifestaron en gran medida haber hecho todo lo posible para reducir el contagio del COVID-19 a lo largo de las fases consideradas, aunque eso disminuyó en las fases 5 y 6. ● El apoyo social percibido por las personas fue alto durante todo el período, con pequeñas variaciones a lo largo de las fases. ● Las estrategias que resultaron más útiles para afrontar la situación fueron el contacto telefónico o virtual con amigos/as y familiares, actividades de entretenimiento, uso de redes sociales y conocimiento de las medidas adoptadas por el Gobierno o los servicios públicos. Las estrategias que resultaron menos útiles fueron jugar a videojuegos online y recurrir a Dios o la religión. Ciencia abierta y acceso abierto COVIDiSTRESS es una investigación global colaborativa que se enmarca en las prácticas de ciencia abierta. Fue creada por investigadores/as de más de 40 países para recolectar rápida y orgánicamente datos sobre las experiencias generadas a partir de la pandemia producida por el COVID-19 en el año 2020. Este informe se focaliza en Argentina y abarca el período del 30 de marzo al 7 de junio. Los análisis que comprenden a otros países comprenden desde el 30 de marzo hasta mayo. Dada la naturaleza del proyecto de ciencia abierta, cualquier persona que tenga interés puede acceder a los datos brutos, como también a versiones curadas de la base de datos lista para realizar análisis, y una lista de todas las variables comprendidas en la encuesta.Fil: Reyna C. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina.Fil: Reyna C. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas; Argentina.Fil: Ortiz, M. V. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina.Fil: Ortiz, M. V. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas; Argentina.Fil: Mola, D. J. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina.Fil: Mola, D. J. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas; Argentina.Fil: Correa, P. S. Universidad Nacional de Córdoba. Facultad de Psicología; Argentina.Fil: Correa, P. S. Consejo Nacional de Investigaciones Científicas y Técnicas. Instituto de Investigaciones Psicológicas; Argentina.Fil: Lieberoth A. Aarhus University; Denmark

A weak scientific basis for gaming disorder: let us err on the side of caution

We greatly appreciate the care and thought that is evident in the 10 commentaries that discuss our debate paper, the majority of which argued in favor of a formalized ICD-11 gaming disorder. We agree that there are some people whose play of video games is related to life problems. We believe that understanding this population and the nature and severity of the problems they experience should be a focus area for future research. However, moving from research construct to formal disorder requires a much stronger evidence base than we currently have. The burden of evidence and the clinical utility should be extremely high, because there is a genuine risk of abuse of diagnoses. We provide suggestions about the level of evidence that might be required: transparent and preregistered studies, a better demarcation of the subject area that includes a rationale for focusing on gaming particularly versus a more general behavioral addictions concept, the exploration of non-addiction approaches, and the unbiased exploration of clinical approaches that treat potentially underlying issues, such as depressive mood or social anxiety first. We acknowledge there could be benefits to formalizing gaming disorder, many of which were highlighted by colleagues in their commentaries, but we think they do not yet outweigh the wider societal and public health risks involved. Given the gravity of diagnostic classification and its wider societal impact, we urge our colleagues at the WHO to err on the side of caution for now and postpone the formalization

Computers in Secondary Schools: Educational Games

This entry introduces educational games in secondary schools. Educational games include three main types of educational activities with a playful learning intention supported by digital technologies: educational serious games, educational gamification, and learning through game creation. Educational serious games are digital games that support learning objectives. Gamification is defined as the use of "game design elements and game thinking in a non-gaming context" (Deterding et al. 2011, p. 13). Educational gamification is not developed through a digital game but includes game elements for supporting the learning objectives. Learning through game creation is focused on the process of designing and creating a prototype of a game to support a learning process related to the game creation process or the knowledge mobilized through the game creation process. Four modalities of educational games in secondary education are introduced in this entry to describe educational games in secondary education: educational purpose of entertainment games, serious games, gamification, and game design

Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition

Governments around the world have implemented measures to manage the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the majority of these measures are proving effective, they have a high social and economic cost, and response strategies are being adjusted. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that communities should have a voice, be informed and engaged, and participate in this transition phase. We propose ten considerations to support this principle: (1) implement a phased approach to a 'new normal'; (2) balance individual rights with the social good; (3) prioritise people at highest risk of negative consequences; (4) provide special support for healthcare workers and care staff; (5) build, strengthen and maintain trust; (6) enlist existing social norms and foster healthy new norms; (7) increase resilience and self-efficacy; (8) use clear and positive language; (9) anticipate and manage misinformation; and (10) engage with media outlets. The transition phase should also be informed by real-time data according to which governmental responses should be updated

COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trustin governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.</div

COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey – an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available

Stress and worry in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic : relationships to trust and compliance with preventive measures across 48 countries in the COVIDiSTRESS global survey

The COVIDiSTRESS global survey collects data on early human responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic from 173 429 respondents in 48 countries. The open science study was co-designed by an international consortium of researchers to investigate how psychological responses differ across countries and cultures, and how this has impacted behaviour, coping and trust in government efforts to slow the spread of the virus. Starting in March 2020, COVIDiSTRESS leveraged the convenience of unpaid online recruitment to generate public data. The objective of the present analysis is to understand relationships between psychological responses in the early months of global coronavirus restrictions and help understand how different government measures succeed or fail in changing public behaviour. There were variations between and within countries. Although Western Europeans registered as more concerned over COVID-19, more stressed, and having slightly more trust in the governments' efforts, there was no clear geographical pattern in compliance with behavioural measures. Detailed plots illustrating between-countries differences are provided. Using both traditional and Bayesian analyses, we found that individuals who worried about getting sick worked harder to protect themselves and others. However, concern about the coronavirus itself did not account for all of the variances in experienced stress during the early months of COVID-19 restrictions. More alarmingly, such stress was associated with less compliance. Further, those most concerned over the coronavirus trusted in government measures primarily where policies were strict. While concern over a disease is a source of mental distress, other factors including strictness of protective measures, social support and personal lockdown conditions must also be taken into consideration to fully appreciate the psychological impact of COVID-19 and to understand why some people fail to follow behavioural guidelines intended to protect themselves and others from infection. The Stage 1 manuscript associated with this submission received in-principle acceptance (IPA) on 18 May 2020. Following IPA, the accepted Stage 1 version of the manuscript was preregistered on the Open Science Framework at https://osf.io/g2t3b. This preregistration was performed prior to data analysis.Peer reviewe

Ten considerations for effectively managing the COVID-19 transition

Governments around the world have implemented measures to manage the transmission of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). While the majority of these measures are proving effective, they have a high social and economic cost, and response strategies are being adjusted. The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends that communities should have a voice, be informed and engaged, and participate in this transition phase. We propose ten considerations to support this principle: (1) implement a phased approach to a ‘new normal’; (2) balance individual rights with the social good; (3) prioritise people at highest risk of negative consequences; (4) provide special support for healthcare workers and care staff; (5) build, strengthen and maintain trust; (6) enlist existing social norms and foster healthy new norms; (7) increase resilience and self-efficacy; (8) use clear and positive language; (9) anticipate and manage misinformation; and (10) engage with media outlets. The transition phase should also be informed by real-time data according to which governmental responses should be updated

COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey dataset on psychological and behavioural consequences of the COVID-19 outbreak

This N = 173,426 social science dataset was collected through the collaborative COVIDiSTRESS Global Survey - an open science effort to improve understanding of the human experiences of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic between 30th March and 30th May, 2020. The dataset allows a cross-cultural study of psychological and behavioural responses to the Coronavirus pandemic and associated government measures like cancellation of public functions and stay at home orders implemented in many countries. The dataset contains demographic background variables as well as measures of Asian Disease Problem, perceived stress (PSS-10), availability of social provisions (SPS-10), trust in various authorities, trust in governmental measures to contain the virus (OECD trust), personality traits (BFF-15), information behaviours, agreement with the level of government intervention, and compliance with preventive measures, along with a rich pool of exploratory variables and written experiences. A global consortium from 39 countries and regions worked together to build and translate a survey with variables of shared interests, and recruited participants in 47 languages and dialects. Raw plus cleaned data and dynamic visualizations are available.Measurement(s) psychological measurement center dot anxiety-related behavior trait center dot Stress center dot response to center dot Isolation center dot loneliness measurement center dot Emotional Distress Technology Type(s) Survey Factor Type(s) geographic location center dot language center dot age of participant center dot responses to the Coronavirus pandemic Sample Characteristic - Organism Homo sapiens Sample Characteristic - Location global Machine-accessible metadata file describing the reported data:Peer reviewe