Health Professions, Neuroscience, Behavioral Neuroscience, Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology
4
Scopus Publications
Scopus Publications
Validation of the Spanish version of the social and emotional loneliness scale for adults – short form (SELSA-S) in older adults Blanca Bartolomé, Manuel Torres, María González-Álamos, Luis Vivanco BMC Research Notes, 2026 To adapt the response format and validate the factor structure of the Spanish SELSA-S for use with older adults. A total of 147 older adults (127 female; age range 65 to 90 years) participated in the study, all of whom lived independently in their homes. Of these, 11% were classified as socially isolated. The sample included 62 participants (42%) from urban areas and 85 (58%) from rural areas of the Pyrenees in La Rioja, Spain. The SELSA-S scale showed variable internal consistency, with alpha and omega coefficients ranging from 0.54 to 0.95 across models and subscales. Convergent and discriminant validity were supported by expected correlation patterns with other loneliness measures and unrelated constructs. No significant associations were found between SELSA-S scores and age. Among the tested models, the original three-factor structure, distinguishing family, social, and romantic loneliness, showed the best fit, despite an elevated RMSEA and negative loadings for two items in the romantic domain. Inter-domain correlations revealed moderate associations between family and romantic loneliness, while social loneliness remained largely independent. These findings support the SELSA-S as a suitable tool for assessing multidimensional loneliness in older adults.
Characterization of Factors Predicting a Favorable Opinion of Research Applications Submitted for an Ethical Review Process Eduardo Mirpuri, Lara García-Álvarez, María Teresa Acín-Gericó, Blanca Bartolomé, Roberto C. Delgado Bolton, Montserrat San-Martín, Luis Vivanco Frontiers in Medicine, 2022 IntroductionIn Spain, biomedical research applications must receive a positive ethical opinion from Research Ethics Committees (RECs) before being executed. There is limited information on how to optimize the ethical review process to reduce delays. This study was performed to characterize variables predicting favorable opinions at the first ethical review performed by a REC.Material and MethodsThe study assessed all research applications revised by a REC in 2019–2020. Data was extracted from REC's database of La Rioja, Spain. Variables collected covered three areas: (i) principal investigator's profile; (ii) study design; and (iii) ethical review process. A model based on multiple logistic regression analysis was created to identify variables explaining favorable opinions in first rounds of ethical review processes.ResultsThe sample included 125 applications (41 submitted in 2019, and 84 in 2020). At the first review, nine (7%) applications were rejected, 56 (45%) were approved, and the remaining 60 (48%) required at least two reviews prior to approval. When comparing both years, a 2-fold increase in the number of applications submitted, and a difference in the ratio of applications with a favorable vs. non-favorable opinion were observed. Furthermore, a model predicted 71% of probability of obtaining a favorable opinion in the first ethical review. Three variables appeared as being explanatory: if the principal investigator is either the group leader or the department's head (OR = 17.39; p < 0.001), and if the informed consent (OR = 11.79; p = 0.01), and methods and procedures (OR = 34.15; p < 0.001) are well done.ConclusionsThese findings confirm an increase in the number of submissions and a difference in the ratio of applications approved by year. Findings observed also confirm deficiencies in “informed consent” and in “methods and procedures” are the two main causes of delay for favorable ethical opinions. Additionally, findings highlight the need that group leaders and heads of departments should be more involved in guiding and supervising their research teams, especially when research applications are led by less experienced researchers. Based on these findings, it is suggested that an adequate mentoring and targeted training in research could derive in more robust research applications and in smoother ethical review processes.
Improvement of inter-professional collaborative work abilities in Mexican medical and nursing students: A longitudinal study Guillermo J. Tuirán-Gutiérrez, Montserrat San-Martín, Roberto Delgado-Bolton, Blanca Bartolomé, Luis Vivanco Frontiers in Psychology, 2019 There are differences in collaborative work skill development among different professional areas. These differences can be reduced through the implementation of a program aimed at developing collaborative work and interpersonal skills in the early stages of training.
Bibliometric analysis of the use of the term preembryo in scientific literature Luis Vivanco, Blanca Bartolomé, Montserrat San Martín, Alfredo Martínez Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 2011 Our objective was to determine the prevalence of the term preembryo in the scientific literature using a bibliometric study in the Web of Science database. We retrieved data from the Web of Science from 1986 to 2005, covering a range of 20 years since the term was first published. Searches for the terms embryo, blastocyst, preimplantation embryo, and preembryo were performed. Then, Boolean operators were applied to measure associations between terms. Finally, statistical assessments were made to compare the use of each term in the scientific literature, and in specific areas where preembryo is most used. From a total of 93,019 registers, 90,888 corresponded to embryo; 8,366 to blastocyst; 2,397 to preimplantation embryo; and 172 to preembryo. The use frequency for preembryo was 2:1000. The term preembryo showed a lower cumulative impact factor (343) in comparison with the others (25,448; 5,530; and 546; respectively) in the highest scored journal category. We conclude that the term preembryo is not used in the scientific community, probably because it is confusing or inadequate. The authors suggest that its use in the scientific literature should be avoided in future publications. The bibliometric analysis confirms this statement. While preembryo hardly ever is used, terms such as preimplantation embryo and blastocyst have gained wide acceptance in publications from the same areas of study.
