4.5 Article

Traumatic Distress, Alexithymia, Dissociation, and Risk of Addiction During the First Wave of COVID-19 in Italy: Results from a Cross-sectional Online Survey on a Non-clinical Adult Sample

期刊

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11469-021-00569-0

关键词

COVID-19; Addiction; Alexithymia; Trauma; Dissociation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study found that females reported higher levels of traumatic stress during COVID-19 compared to males, fear of COVID-19 was significantly associated with traumatic stress, and internet addiction was significantly related to dissociative experiences during the pandemic.
This study aimed to explore the prevalence of post-traumatic distress, alexithymia, dissociation, and addictive behaviors during the stressful situation of the COVID-19 pandemic. It also aimed to determine whether trauma, alexithymia, and dissociation can effectively predict the risk of addiction in non-clinical subjects during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two hundred nineteen subjects completed a web survey during the first COVID-19 lockdown in Italy, including the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), the Dissociative Experience Scale-II (DES-II), and the Addictive Behavior Questionnaire (ABQ). Females reported higher levels of COVID-19-related traumatic stress than males (p = 0.009). A greater fear of getting COVID-19 was associated with significantly high IES-R scores (p < 0.0005). IES-R total score was significantly lower in the not internet-addicted group than that in the internet-addicted group (p < 0.0005). Furthermore, DES-II total score was significantly higher in the internet-addicted group than that in the non internet-addicted group (p < 0.0005). No statistically significant score differences were highlighted in the alcohol group. Future research with longitudinal studies and larger samples will have to clarify whether trauma, alexithymia, and dissociation can effectively predict the risk of addiction in non-clinical subjects during the COVID-19 pandemic.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据