Alexithymia, social support, psycho-social stress and mental health in a female population
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: We wanted to look into what impact the level of alexithymia, as assessed by the Toronto Alexithymia Scale with 20 items (TAS-20), has on presence of social support and vulnerability for psycho-social stress assessed as occurrence of serious life-events, in an all-female population. METHODS: A total of 1032 of females employed in a child-care programme in Sweden participated. They were asked to fill in a questionnaire and 864 (83.6%) delivered complete tests. RESULTS: The prevalence of alexithymia was 7.9% and there were significant associations between high TAS-20 scores with low level of education. In addition, this assessment showed significant relationships between global TAS-20, as well as the sub-factors of TAS-20 and lower social support. Having a low level of social support was found to be 3.5 times more common in the part of the population who was alexithymic. It was also 2.6 times more common for the alexithymic part of the population not to have someone to turn to. Alexithymics with low support and no life events had overall mean scores on all the three variables presenting them as worse off from a mental health point of view. When life events were present alexithymics remained worse off than non-alexithymics even when a higher level of support was in place. There was a significant direct protective (salutary) effect of social support found for social disability in the alexithymic population. CONCLUSION: Alexithymics in this study showed a lack of social support and a proneness to high levels of negative emotion and to social distress.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".