ArticleHeliyon2022
Understanding the impact of the COVID-19-related lockdown in university workers. Identifying groups through cluster analysis.
Article in Heliyon, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Coronavirus Anatomy and Its Analytical Approaches for Targeting COVID-19.Advances in experimental medicine and biology · 2024Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Objective: To analyse the COVID-19-related lockdown impact on University workers, to identify groups based on this information, and to study the factors associated with each group. Study design: Cross-sectional study. Methods: A survey was conducted 3.5 weeks after COVID-19-related lockdown in University workers in Spain. Sociodemographic variables, housing, work, health conditions, levels of anxiety, stress and depression (DASS-21), and social support (MSPSS) were collected. A cluster analysis was performed to identify groups depending on the impact of the lockdown. Differences between groups were tested using Chi-square and Mann-Whitney-U tests, and associated factors with binary logistic regression. Results: We identified two groups of workers. "G1: Consequences in the daily life routine" was mainly composed of men, Research and Teaching Personnel (RTP) with more stable professional categories, higher income level, and bigger houses than people in G2. Participants in "G2: Concerns for the current and future well-being" presented worse intensity of pain than before the lockdown, more anxiety, depression, stress and less social support than people in G1. ASP (Administration and Services Personnel) had more risk of belonging to G2 than RTP (OR = 5.863). A higher number of people living at home decreased the risk of being in G2 (OR = 0.439). People with lower pain intensity had less risk of being in G2 (OR = 0.014), and this risk decreased as friends support increased (OR = 0.833). Conclusions: In G1, the consequences were immediately reflected in the stress resulting from changes in their daily work routine. In G2, the concerns were related to their professional future, with worse mental health, greater intensity of pain and less social support.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.