Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2025 Aug 13.
Published in final edited form as: Salud Ment (Mex). 2024 Sep-Oct;47(5):249–257. doi: 10.17711/sm.0185-3325.2024.029

Factors Associated with Interpersonal Violence and Depression Symptoms in Adolescent Students from Jalisco during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Factores asociados con violencia interpersonal y síntomas de depresión en adolescentes escolares de Jalisco, durante la pandemia de COVID-19

Evangelina Díaz Andrade 1,2, Rosibel Rodríguez Bolaños 3, Anabel Rojas Carmona 4,5, Paula Ramírez Palacios 6, Edna Arillo Santillán 3, Inti Barrientos Gutiérrez 6, Dèsirée Vidaña Pérez 7, James F Thrasher 3,7
PMCID: PMC12345613  NIHMSID: NIHMS2027376  PMID: 40809376

Abstract

Introduction.

Violence is a major public health problem, which increased during the Covid-19 pandemic, affecting the physical and mental development of adolescents.

Objective.

To analyze factors associated with interpersonal violence and depressive symptoms in adolescent students in the South of Jalisco.

Methods.

Data were drawn from an online survey of 3,046 adolescents (12–19 years) conducted between September and December 2021. The Beck Depression Inventory was used to assess depressive symptoms. Self-report of neglect, physical, psychological, sexual, and digital violence in the previous 12 months were analyzed. Bivariate and multivariate logistic regression models explored factors associated with depression and violence.

Results.

A total of 28.8% of the sample reported depressive symptoms, 46.9% physical violence, 42.7% psychological violence, 34.9% neglect, 12.3% digital violence, and 5.2% sexual violence. The odds of depression were higher for those who experienced physical violence (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]=1.3 CI95% [1.1–1.6]), psychological and (aOR=4.1 CI95% [3.4–5.1]), digital violence (aOR=2.0 CI95% [1.5–2.5]); and neglect (aOR=1.6 CI95% [1.3–1.9]). Grils and adolescents aged 15–19 years, had higher odds of experiencing sexual, digital, and psychological violence. Poor school performance was associated with lower odds of reporting neglect (aOR=0.6 CI95% [0.5–0.8]) and sexual violence (aOR=0.5 CI95% [0.3–0.8]), while being employed was associated with reporting higher odds of physical violence (aOR=1.5 CI95% [1.3–1.8]) and neglect (aOR=1.3 CI95% [1.1–1.5]). Greater use of social networks and videogames was associated with higher odds of physical, psychological, and digital violence.

Conclusion.

It is necessary to implement comprehensive public programs and policies to address violence and implement intersectoral social intervention strategies in mental health.

Keywords: Adolescent, depression, violence, COVID-19

INTRODUCTION

Violence is a global public health problem with consequences for the physical and mental development of those exposed to it. Adolescents exposed to contextual violence tend to experience challenges in their individual development such as interpersonal and social relationships, due to its physical and mental implications (Martín del Campo-Ríos & Cruz-Torres, 2020; Organización Mundial de la Salud, 2006). In addition, interpersonal violence at the family level can manifest itself through physical violence, sexual, psychological, and neglect (Organización Mundial de la Salud, 2006), also affecting the development of adolescents. Usually, adolescents exposed to any of these types of violence tend to drop-out of school, exhibit problematic behaviours, uptake in substance use, and are at higher risk of developing a wide array of mental disorders (Noriega Ruiz & Noriega Saravia, 2021). Recently, violence exerted through digital social networks has been associated with depression, suicide and other mental health conditions among adolescents (Álvarez Gutiérrez & Castillo Koschnick, 2019).

As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic, an increase in intrafamily violence was reported, especially towards women, children and adolescents (Marques et al., 2020)). Among the main risk factors found for this increase were the use of substances by the perpetrators, and the work overload in women, which decreases the ability to avoid conflicts (Alt et al., 2021; Holmes et al., 2020; Marques et al., 2020). In some Latin American countries adolescents, reported an increase in the arguments at home 21% (UNICEF, 2021), stress 52%, and episodes of anxiety 47% (Naciones Unidas, 2021). In addition, there was an increased report of depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress was reported, (Caffo, Asta, & Scandroglio, 2021; Rauschenberg et al., 2021; Zhou et al., 2020a) due to the effect of mitigation measures for the COVID-19 pandemic (SEGOB, 2020). Among adolescents, the most common disorder reported during the confinement period was depression (González Rodríguez & Martínez Rubio, 2022). Studies before the pandemic linked the exposure to violence with an increase in the probability of developing depression (Orozco Henao, Marín Díaz, & Zuluaga Valencia, 2020; Ughasoro et al., 2022)an increased risk of suicide, (Rossi et al., 2020) dropping out of school, victimization, substance abuse, (Benjet, Borges, Medina-Mora, & Méndez, 2013) and perpetuation of violence (Kim, Cardwell, & Lee, 2021). The latter has only been aggravated as a consequence of the change in the personal, family and social dynamics generated since COVID-19 (Gómez Macfarland & Sánchez Ramírez, 2020).

In Mexico, the prevalence of depression in adolescent population increased from 13.6% in 2018 to 19.7% in 2020 (Shamah-Levy, 2021; Shamah-Levy, 2020). During the pandemic, 36.5% of adolescents between the ages of 15 and 17 reported having suffered some type of violence at home (Larrea-schiavon, López-lalinde, & Gutiérrez, 2021). These results showed that the prevalence for all types of violence was higher in women compared to men; 20.2% of women and 19.9% of men reported physical violence; 38.9% of women and 30.4% of men reported psychological violence; 3.6% and 1.1%) of women and men reported sexual violence; and 43.5% of women reported any type of online harassment compared to 24.3% of men (Larrea-schiavon et al., 2021). Previous studies have found that some of the factors associated to being victim of violence among adolescents are being women, directly witness violence, and low socioeconomic level (Martín del Campo-Ríos & Cruz-Torres, 2020; Noriega Ruiz & Noriega Saravia, 2021).

Jalisco is a Mexican state where the adolescent population (15–19 years) represents 28.2% of the total population of the entity, being one of the states with higher amount of adolescents (UNFPA, CONAPO, & IMJUVE, 2021). Before the pandemic, 60.6% of women between the ages of 15 and 29 reported having suffered any type of violence (UNFPA et al., 2021). During 2022 it was among the top 10 States with the most femicides and reports of family violence (Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública, 2022). In a study conducted with adolescents from Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco, 5.0% reported family violence and 12.1% severe depression (Díaz-Andrade, García-Ramírez, López-Nava, Michel-Jiménez, & Ramos-Trujillo, 2022) revealing the seriousness of this problematic. The present manuscript has the hypothesis that violence received and depressive symptoms in adolescents may be associated with sociodemographic factors (e.g. sex, age and job), family, use of video games and social networks. This study aims to analyze the factors associated with the types of interpersonal violence experimented and depressive symptoms in adolescent attending school in the South of Jalisco, in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHOD

Design and study population

Data comes from the Mental Health, Addictions and Violence Survey-Jalisco (ESMAV, for its acronym in Spanish), applied to middle (n=51 schools) and high school (n=19 schools) students from 16 municipalities in southern Jalisco. ESMAV is a cross-sectional study that was carried out from September to December 2021. The questionnaire was applied online at the schools, and the students answered it from their own computers or cell phones. A total of n=3,215 students were invited to participate, 126 and 43 did not meet the age criteria (<12 or >19 years). The final analytical sample was n=3,046 adolescents from 12 to 19 years.

Measurements

Violence.

We collected information on five types of violence experienced in the last 12 months, as follows: 1. Physical violence: a) have you been thrown any type of object such as shoes, kitchen utensils, furniture or any other, whether it hit you or not? b) have you been hit with the hand anywhere on your body? c) have you been burned with an iron, the stove, a match or cigarette or any liquid or other hot object on your body?; 2. Psychological violence: a) has anyone referred to you with rude or aggressive words that have made you feel bad? b) have you had been made fun of due to your physical characteristics, or your knowledge, your way of thinking, acting and feeling? c) have you been humiliated?; 3. Sexual violence: a) were you baited or sexually harassed or forced to let yourself be touched or caressed against your will? b) were you forced to have sexual intercourse against your will, without or with the use of physical force?; 4. Neglect: a) have you been tied you up to prevent you from going out or doing your things? b) have you have been prevented from going to the doctor or have been not cared about your state or health condition, when you have needed it? c) have you been limited on your diet, clothing, recreation or education at home? d) were you taken care enough? 5. Digital violence: a) have you received any type of violence or harassment through the internet/digital social networks? The affirmative answer to any of the questions, except for “they take care of you enough” was consider as having experimented violence.

Depression.

We assess depressive symptoms using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI-IA), validated version (α=0.92) in Mexican adolescents (Beltrán, Freyre, & Hernández-Guzmán, 2012). BDI-IA includes 21 items on depressive symptoms in the two weeks prior to the survey, with four response options. The score ranges from 0 to 63, where higher scores mean greater severity. The cut-off point used to discriminate between those who presented depressive symptoms from those who did not, adjusted for gender, is 14 points in men and 18 for women.

Covariates:

We obtained sociodemographic information on sex, age (categorized as 12–14 years and 15–19 years); grade-point average (<8.0, 8–9, 9–10) being employed (Yes/No); use of social media frequency (i.e., Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, TikTok, WhatsApp, Twitch) in the last month (never/rarely/occasional/frequent/very frequent); and hours of daily use of videogames (I don’t play/<1 hour/1 to ≥5 hours per day) (Barrientos-Gutierrez et al., 2019). The education of the father and mother was included (completed secondary school or less/completed or incomplete high school/college degree or more/I don’t know/I don’t have father/mother). As an indicator of wealth, the Family Affluence Scale (FAS) (Pérez et al., 2021) was used, an index composed of four items: a) how many cars or vans does your family own? (0/1/2 or more), b) do you have a room to yourself? (0/1), c) during the last 12 months, how many times did you go on vacation with your family? (0/1/2/3 or more), and d) how many computers do your family have? (0/1/2/3 or more). Scoring from 0 to 9. Higher scores indicate greater family material wealth, and it was classified into 3 categories: low (0–2 points), medium (3–5 points), and high (6–9 points).

Statistical analysis

A descriptive analysis was performed to calculate percentages for each of the categorical variables. Separate Bivariate (OR) and multivariate logistic regression models (aOR) were fitted. First, we explored if experimenting any type of violence was associated with depressive symptoms and any other of the sociodemographic variables. A second set of logistic regression models were fitter to assess the association between experimenting any of the five types of violence and depressive symptoms and all sociodemographic and family variables, including experimenting each one of the five types of violence. Analyses were performed using Stata v.15 software (StataCorp LP, College Station, TX, USA). (Stata Statistical Software: Release 14, n.d.)

Ethical considerations

Prior data collection, informed consent and assent were requested. The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee and the Research Committee of the Sanitary Region VI of Ciudad Guzmán (103/RVI/2021).

RESULTS

On our sample, 57.4% were women and 78.0% were 12–14 years old. Results show a prevalence of 28.8% of depression, 46.9% reported physical violence, 42.7% psychological violence, 34.9% neglect, 12.3% digital violence and 5.2% sexual violence (Table I).

Table I.

Sociodemographic characteristics of the sample. ESMAV-Jalisco 2021 (n=3 046)

Variable n %
Sex
 Men 1 299 42.7
 Women 1 747 57.4
Age years
 12 to 14 2 377 78.0
 15 to 19 669 22.0
Grade-point average
 < 8.0 782 25.7
 8.0 to 8.9 1 093 35.9
 9.0 to 10 1 171 38.4
Job
 Yes 897 29.5
Social media use
 Never 320 10.5
 Rarely/ocasional 650 21.3
 Frequent/very frequent 2 076 68.2
Videogame use time
 I don’t play 1 246 40.9
 <1 hour per day 597 19.6
 1 hour per day 386 12.7
 2 hours per day 365 12.0
 3 hours per day 201 6.6
 4 hours per day 112 3.7
 ≥5 hours per day 139 4.6
Father's education
 Complete secondary school or less 1 850 60.7
 Complete or incomplete high school 567 18.6
 College degree or more 253 8.3
 Don’t know 235 7.7
 Donť have father 141 4.6
Mother's education
Complete secondary school or less 1 836 60.3
Complete or incomplete high school 740 24.3
College degree or more 304 10.0
Don’t know 158 5.2
Donť have mother 8 0.3
Family Affluence Scale ‡
 Low 1 054 34.6
 Medium 1 366 44.9
 High 626 20.6
Depression ¥
 Yes 878 28.8
Violence received
 Physical 1 429 46.9
 Psychological 1 299 42.7
 Sexual 159 5.2
 Neglect 1 064 34.9
 Digital 375 12.3
Open in a new tab

SD - Standard deviation

‡

Family Afluence Scale (FAS): low=0–2 points; medium=3–5 points; high=6–9 points

¥

Depression: ≥14 for male y ≥18 for female, according to Beck Depression Inventory

Factors associated with higher odds of physical violence were being employed (aOR=1.5 95%CI [1.3–1.8]) and frequent/very frequent use of social media (aOR=1.7 95%CI [1.3–2.2]). While being a woman (aOR=0.8 95%CI [0.6–0.9]), being 15–19 years old compared to being 12–14 years (aOR=0.7 95%CI [0.6–0.9]) and the father having a bachelor’s degree or more (aOR=0.7 95%CI [0.5–0.9]) were associated with lower odds of experimenting physical violence (Table II).

Table II.

Crude and adjusted odds ratio of sociodemographic variables and its association with receiving physical, psychological, sexual, neglect and digital violence in adolescents. ESMAV-Jalisco 2021 (n=3 046).

Variables Physical Psychological Sexual Neglect Digital
% OR crude ‡ (95% CI) OR adjusted ¥
(95% CI)		 % OR crude ‡
(95% CI)		 OR adjusted ¥ (95% CI) % OR crude ‡
(95% CI)		 OR adjusted ¥ (95% CI) % OR crude ‡ (95% CI) OR adjusted ¥ (95% CI) % OR crude ‡ (95% CI) OR adjusted ¥ (95% CI)
Sex
 Men 47.3 ref. ref. 35.2 ref. ref. 1.8 ref. ref. 32.3 ref. ref. 7.6 ref. ref.
 Women 46.7 1.0 (0.8–1.1) 0.8 (0.6–0.9)* 48.2 1.7 (1.5–2.0)** 1.9 (1.5–2.3)** 7.8 4.7 (3.0–7.3)** 3.6 (2.2–6.0)** 36.9 1.2 (1.1–1.4)* 1.0 (0.8–1.2) 15.8 2.3 (1.8–2.9)** 1.7 (1.3–2.3)**
Age years
 12 to 14 46.7 ref. ref. 40.5 ref. ref. 4.1 ref. ref. 34.1 ref. ref. 9.9 ref. ref.
 15 to 19 47.5 1.0 (0.9–1.2) 0.7 (0.6–0.9)** 50.4 1.5 (1.3–1.8)** 1.3 (1.0–1.6)* 9.3 2.4 (1.7–3.3)** 1.7 (1.2–2.5)** 37.8 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 0.9 (0.8–1.1) 20.9 2.4 (1.9–3.0)** 2.0 (1.6–2.7)**
Grade-point average
 < 8.0 50.8 ref. ref. 48.7 ref. ref. 8.7 ref. ref. 41.9 ref. ref. 16.0 ref. ref.
 8.0 to 8.9 50.1 1.0 (0.8–1.2) 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 43.0 0.8 (0.7–1.0)* 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 4.5 0.5 (0.3–0.7)** 0.6 (0.4–0.8)** 37.8 0.8 (0.7–1.0) 0.9 (0.8–1.1) 11.9 0.7 (0.5–0.9)* 0.8 (0.6–1.1)
 9.0 to 10 41.4 0.7 (0.6–0.8)** 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 38.3 0.7 (0.5–0.8)** 0.8 (0.7–1.0) 3.6 0.4 (0.3–0.6)** 0.5 (0.3–0.8)** 27.6 0.5 (0.4–0.6)** 0.6 (0.5–0.8)** 10.3 0.6 (0.5–0.8)** 0.8 (0.6–1.1)
Job
 No 42.8 ref. ref. 39.6 ref. ref. 4.4 ref. ref. 32.4 ref. ref. 11.0 ref. ref.
 Yes 56.9 1.8 (1.5–2.1)** 1.5 (1.3–1.8)** 49.9 1.5 (1.3–1.8)** 1.2 (1.0–1.5) 7.1 1.7 (1.2–2.3)** 1.2 (0.8–1.7) 41.0 1.5 (1.2 – 1.7)** 1.3 (1.1–1.5)** 15.5 1.5 (1.2–1.9)** 1.1 (0.9–1.4)
Social networks use
 Never 33.8 ref. ref. 28.1 ref. ref. 3.1 ref. ref. 30.9 ref. ref. 6.3 ref. ref.
 Rarely/ocasional 37.4 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 1.1 (0.8–1.5) 34.0 1.3 (1.0–1.8) 1.2 (0.8–1.6) 2.9 0.9 (0.4–2.0) 0.6 (0.3–1.4) 32.2 1.1 (0.8–1.4) 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 7.7 1.3 (0.7–2.1) 1.0 (0.6–1.8)
 Frequent/very frequent 51.9 2.1 (1.7–2.7)** 1.7 (1.3–2.2)** 47.6 2.3 (1.8–3.0)** 1.4 (1.0–1.9)* 6.3 2.1 (1.1–4.0)* 0.8 (0.4–1.6) 36.4 1.3 (1.0–1.7) 1.0 (0.7–1.3) 14.7 2.6 (1.6–4.1)** 1.3 (0.8–2.2)
Video game use time
 I don’t play 42.9 ref. ref. 42.2 6.5 ref. ref. 37.3 ref. ref. 13.6 ref. ref.
 <1 hour per day 44.2 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 1.1 (0.8–1.3) 38.4 0.9 (0.7–1.0) 1.1 (0.8–1.4) 3.5 0.5 (0.3–0.9)* 0.7 (0.4–1.3) 34.7 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 9.6 0.7 (0.5–0.9)* 0.9 (0.6–1.3)
 1 hour per day 50.0 1.3 (1.1–1.7)* 1.3 (1.0–1.7) 41.7 1.0 (0.8–1.2) 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 4.2 0.6 (0.4–1.1) 0.9 (0.5–1.6) 33.7 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 0.8 (0.7–1.1) 12.2 0.9 (0.6–1.3) 1.2 (0.8–1.8)
 2 hours per day 51.0 1.4 (1.1–1.7)** 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 42.7 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 1.3 (1.0–1.8) 3.8 0.6 (0.3–1.0) 1.0 (0.5–1.8) 30.1 0.7 (0.6–0.9)* 0.7 (0.5–0.9)* 9.6 0.7 (0.5–1.0)* 0.9 (0.6–1.4)
 3 hours per day 54.2 1.6 (1.2–2.1)** 1.3 (0.9–1.9) 44.3 1.1 (0.8–1.5) 1.3 (0.9–1.9) 5.5 0.8 (0.4–1.6) 1.5 (0.7–3.1) 30.4 0.7 (0.5–1.0) 0.7 (0.5–1.0) 11.4 0.8 (0.5–1.3) 1.1 (0.6–1.9)
 4 hours per day 50.9 1.4 (0.9–2.0) 1.0 (0.7–1.6) 52.7 1.5 (1.0–2.3)* 2.1 (1.3–3.4)** 6.3 1.0 (0.4–2.1) 1.4 (0.6–2.2) 28.6 0.7 (0.4–1.0) 0.6 (0.4–0.9)* 10.7 0.8 (0.4–1.4) 0.9 (0.4–1.7)
 ≥5 hours per day 61.2 2.1 (1.5–3.0)** 1.4 (0.9–2.1) 56.8 1.8 (1.3–2.6)** 1.6 (1.0–2.5)* 6.5 1.0 (0.5–2.0) 1.0 (0.4–2.2) 42.5 1.2 (0.9–1.8) 1.0 (0.7–1.5) 23 1.9 (1.2–2.9)** 2.1 (1.3–3.5)**
Father's education
Completed secondary school or less (ref.) 47.4 ref. ref. 41.1 ref. ref. 4.9 ref. ref. 35.1 ref. ref. 11.5 ref. ref.
Completed or incomplete high school 47.6 1.0 (0.8–1.2) 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 43.6 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 1.1 (0.9–1.5) 6.0 1.2 (0.8–1.9) 1.4 (0.9–2.2) 31.2 0.8 (0.7–1.0) 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 11.3 1.0 (0.7–1.3) 0.8 (0.6–1.1)
College degree or more 41.9 0.8 (0.6–1.0) 0.7 (0.5–0.9)* 44.3 1.1 (0.9–1.5) 1.2 (0.9–1.7) 3.6 0.7 (0.4–1.4) 0.7 (0.3–1.6) 26.9 0.7 (0.5–0.9)* 0.9 (0.6–1.3) 13.4 1.2 (0.8–1.8) 1.0 (0.6–1.6)
Don’t know 46.8 1.0 (0.7–1.3) 0.9 (0.6–1.3) 46.4 1.2 (0.9–1.6) 1.1 (0.8–1.7) 6.0 1.2 (0.7–2.2) 1.0 (0.5–2.1) 46.0 1.6 (1.2–2.1)** 1.6 (1.1–2.2)* 15.3 1.4 (1.0–2.0) 1.2 (0.7–2.0)
Donť have father 46.8 1.0 (0.7–1.4) 0.8 (0.5–1.2) 49.7 1.4 (1.0–2.0)* 1.2 (0.8–1.8) 7.8 1.6 (0.9–3.1) 1.1 (0.5–2.2) 43.3 1.4 (1.0–2.0) 1.4 (0.9–1.9) 19.9 1.9 (1.2–3.0)** 1.4 (0.8–2.3)
Mother's education
Completed secondary school or less (ref.) 46.6 ref. ref. 41.3 ref. ref. 5.4 ref. ref. 37.4 ref. ref. 11.2 ref. ref.
Completed or incomplete high school 47.4 1.0 (0.9–1.2) 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 43.2 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 4.6 0.8 (0.6–1.3) 0.8 (0.5–1.3) 31.4 0.8 (0.6–0.9)* 0.8 (0.6–0.9)** 13.5 1.2 (1.0–1.6) 1.3 (1.0–1.8)
College degree or more 49.0 1.1 (0.9–1.4) 1.1 (0.8–1.5) 48.4 1.3 (1.0–1.7)* 1.4 (1.0–1.9) 5.9 1.1 (0.7–1.9) 1.1 (0.6–2.1) 24.7 0.6 (0.4–0.7)** 0.5 (0.4–0.7)** 15.1 1.4 (1.0–2.0) 1.5 (0.9–2.3)
Don’t know 43.0 0.9 (0.6–1.2) 0.7 (0.5–1.2) 44.9 1.2 (0.8–1.6) 1.1 (0.7–1.8) 5.1 0.9 (0.5–2.0) 0.8 (0.3–2.1) 43.7 1.3 (0.9–1.8) 0.9 (0.6–1.4) 13.9 1.3 (0.8–2.1) 1.1 (0.6–2.1)
Donť have mother 62.5 1.9 (0.5–8.0) 3.1 (0.7–14.6) 25.0 0.5 (0.1–2.4) 0.4 (0.1–2.2) 0.0 NEO NEO 12.5 0.2 (0.0–2.0) 0.2 (0.0–1.7) 12.5 1.1 (0.1–9.2) 2.1 (0.3–18.6)
Family Affluence Scale ‡
 Low 42.3 ref. ref. 38.5 ref. ref. 4.8 ref. ref. 32.2 ref. ref. 9.8
 Medium 48.9 1.3 (1.1–1.5)* 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 44.6 1.3 (1.1–1.5)** 1.1 (0.9–1.3) 5.6 1.2 (0.8–1.7) 1.03 (0.7–1.6) 34.9 1.1 (1.0–1.3) 1.2 (1.0–1.4) 13.7 1.46 (1.1–1.9)** 1.3 (1.0–1.7)
 High 50.3 1.4 (1.1–1.7)* 1.2 (0.9–1.5) 45.4 1.3 (1.1–1.6)** 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 5.0 1.0 (0.7–1.6) 0.9 (0.5–1.5) 39.6 1.4 (1.1–1.7)** 1.7 (1.4–2.2)** 13.6 1.45 (1.1–2.0)* 1.2 (0.8–1.7)
Violence received
Physical
 No -- -- 22.6 ref. ref. 2.2 ref. ref. 31.0 ref. ref. 7.4 ref. ref.
 Yes -- -- 65.4 6.5 (5.5– 7.6)** 6.0 (5.0– 7.1)** 8.6 4.1 (2.8– 6.0)** 1.8 (1.2– 2.8)** 39.4 1.5 (1.3– 1.7)** 1.0 (0.8– 1.2) 17.9 2.8 (2.2–3.5)** 1.3 (1.0– 1.8)*
Psychological
 No 28.3 ref. ref. -- -- 1.0 ref. ref. 27.5 ref. ref. 4.5 ref. ref.
 Yes 71.9 6.5 (5.5–7.6)** 6.0 (5.0–7.1)** -- -- 10.9 12.5 (7.5– 20.8)** 5.2 (3.0– 9.1)** 45.0 2.2 (1.9– 2.5)** 1.8 (1.5– 2.2)** 22.8 6.2 (4.8–8.1)** 3.6 (2.7–4.8)**
Sexual
 No 45.2 ref. ref. 40.1 ref. ref. -- -- 33.5 ref. ref. 10.3 ref. ref.
 Yes 77.4 4.1 (2.8– 6.0)** 1.8 (1.2– 2.7)** 89.3 12.5 (7.5– 0.8)** 5.0 (2.9–8.9)** -- -- 60.4 3.0 (2.2–4.2)** 1.7 (1.2– 2.5)** 49.7 8.6 (6.2–12.1)** 3.6 (2.5–5.2)**
Neglect
 No 43.7 ref. ref. 36.1 ref. ref. 3.2 ref. ref. -- -- 8.5 ref. ref.
 Yes 52.9 1.5 (1.3– 1.7)** 1.0 (0.8– 1.2) 54.9 2.2 (1.9–2.5)** 1.8 (1.5–2.2)** 9.0 3.0 (2.2– 4.2)** 1.7 (1.2–2.5)** -- -- 19.4 2.6 (2.1–3.2)** 1.8 (1.4–2.3)**
Digital
 No 43.9 ref. ref. 37.6 ref. ref. 3.0 ref. ref. 32.1 ref. ref. -- --
 Yes 68.3 2.8 (2.2– 3.5)** 1.3 (1.0– 1.8)* 78.9 6.2 (4.8–8.1)** 3.6 (2.7–4.8)** 21.1 8.6 (6.2–12.1)** 3.6 (2.5–5.2)** 54.9 2.6 (2.1–3.2)** 1.8 (1.4– 2.3)** -- --
Open in a new tab

OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence interval; NEO: Not Enough Observations

‡

Logistic regression model

¥

Logistic regression model adjusted for all covariates.

*

p<0.05

**

p<0.01

Higher odds of psychological violence were associated with being a woman (aOR=1.9 95%CI [1.5–2.3]), being 15–19 years old (aOR=1.3 95%CI [1.0–1.6]), frequent/very frequent use of social media (aOR=1.4 95% CI [1.0–1.9]), using video games 4 hrs per day (aOR=2.1 95%CI [1.3–3.4]) and ≥5 hours per day (aOR=1.6 95% CI [1.0–2.5]) (Table II).

Higher odds of sexual violence was associated with being a woman (aOR=3.6 95%CI [2.2–6]), being 15–19 years old (aOR=1.7 95%CI [1.2–2.5]); those with a higher grade-point average (aOR=0.5 95% CI [0.3–0.8]) were less likely to receive sexual violence (Table II).

Violence due to neglect was higher among those who reported being employed (aOR=1.3 95% CI [1.1–1.5]), adolescents who did not know their father’s education (aOR=1.6 95% CI [1.1–2.2]), and among those who belonged to the highest tercile of the FAS (aOR=1.7 95% CI [1.4–2.2]). However, having a high grade-point average (aOR=0.6 95% CI [0.5–0.8]) and mother with at least a high school education (aOR=0.5 95% CI [0.4–0.7]) were less likely to report dropping out. Being a woman (aOR=1.7 95% CI [1.3–2.3]), being between 15 and 19 years old (aOR=2.0 95% CI [1.6–2.7]) and using video games ≥5 hours a day (aOR=2.1 95%CI [1.3–3.5]) were associated with higher odds of digital violence (Table II).

Being a woman (aOR=1.7 95%CI [1.4–2.1]), being 15–19 years old (aOR=1.5 95%CI [1.2–1.8]), not having a father (aOR=1.54 95%CI [1.03–2.33]) and using video games ≥5 hours per day (aOR=2.7 95%CI [1.7–4.1]), were associated with greater odds of depressive symptoms (Table III). Physical violence (aOR=1.3 95%CI [1.1–1.6]), psychological violence (aOR=4.1 95%CI [3.4–5.1]), digital violence (aOR=2 95%CI [1.5–2.5]) and neglect (aOR=1.6 95% CI [1.3–1.9]) were associated with higher odds of depressive symptoms (Table III).

Table III.

Crude and adjusted odds ratio of depression symptoms and its association with sociodemographic variables and physical, psychological, sexual, neglect and digital violence received in adolescents from southern Jalisco. ESMAV-Jalisco 2021 (n=3 046).

Variable Depression symptoms
% OR crude ‡ (95% CI) OR adjusted ¥ (95% CI)
Sex
Men 22.0 ref. ref.
Women 34.0 1.8 (1.5–2.1)** 1.7 (1.4–2.1)**
Age
12 to 14 26.3 ref. ref.
15 to 19 33.8 1.7 (1.4–2.0)** 1.5 (1.2–1.8)**
Grade-point average
< 8.0 (ref.) 38.0 ref. ref.
8.0 to 8.9 30.0 0.7 (0.6–0.8)** 0.8 (0.6–1.0)*
9.0 to 10 22.0 0.5 (0.4–0.6)** 0.6 (0.5–0.8)**
Job
No 27.0 ref. ref.
Yes 34.0 1.4 (1.2–1.7)** 1.1 (0.9–1.3)
Social networks use
Never 18.0 ref. ref.
Rarely/ocasional 24.0 1.4 (1.0–2.0)* 1.2 (0.8–1.7)
Frequent/very frequent 32.0 2.1 (1.5–2.8)** 1.2 (0.8–1.6)
Videogame use time
I don’t play 29.0 ref. ref.
<1 hour per day 25.0 0.9 (0.7–1.1) 1.1 (0.9–1.5)
1 hour per day 23.0 0.8 (0.6–1.0)* 1.0 (0.7–1.3)
2 hours per day 31.0 1.1 (0.9–1.5) 1.6 (1.2–2.2)**
3 hours per day 28.0 1.0 (0.7–1.4) 1.4 (0.9–2.1)
4 hours per day 41.0 1.8 (1.2–2.6)** 2.3 (1.4–3.6)**
≥5 hours per day 49.0 2.4 (1.7–3.4)** 2.7 (1.7–4.1)**
Father's education
Complete secondary school or less 27.0 ref. ref.
Complete or incomplete high school 28.0 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 1.0 (0.8–1.3)
College degree or more 25.0 0.9 (0.7–1.2) 0.9 (0.6–1.4)
I don’t know 38.0 1.6 (1.2–2.2)** 1.4 (0.9–2.0)
I donť have father 43.0 2.0 (1.4–2.8)** 1.5 (1.0–2.3)*
Mother's education
Complete secondary school or less 29.0 ref. ref.
Complete or incomplete high school 27.0 0.9 (0.8–1.1) 0.9 (0.7–1.1)
College degree or more 29.3 1.0 (0.8–1.3) 1.1 (0.8–1.5)
I don’t know 39.0 1.6(1.1–2.2)** 1.3 (0.8–2.0)
I donť have mother 13.0 0.4 (0.0–2.9) 0.5 (0.1–4.3)
Family Affluence Scale ‡
Low 29.0 ref. ref.
Medium 29.0 1.0 (0.9–1.2) 0.9 (0.7–1.1)
High 29.0 1.0 (0.8–1.2) 0.8 (0.6–1.0)
Violence received
Physical
No 20.0 ref. ref.
Yes 39.0 2.7 (2.3–3.1)** 1.3 (1.1–1.6)**
Psychological
No 14.0 ref. ref.
Yes 50.0 6.3 (5.3–7.5)** 4.1 (3.4–5.1)**
Sexual
No 27.0 ref. ref.
Yes 64.0 4.7 (3.4–6.6)** 1.4 (1.0–2.1)
Neglect
No 23.0 ref. ref.
Yes 40.0 2.3 (1.9–2.7)** 1.6 (1.3–1.9)**
Digital
No 25.0 ref. ref.
Yes 59.0 4.3 (3.5–5.4)** 2.0 (1.5–2.5)**
Open in a new tab

OR: Odds Ratio; CI: Confidence interval

‡

Logistic regression model

¥

Logistic regression model adjusted for all covariates

*

p<0.05

**

p<0.01

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION

The results of this study show the factors associated with violence and depressive symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic, among the adolescent population of southern Jalisco. Receiving violence of any type increases the possibility of having depressive symptoms. Likewise, odds of having depressive symptoms was associated with being female, between 15 and 19 years old, poor school performance, and greater use of social networks and videogames.

We found higher prevalence of physical (47.0%), psychological (42.7%) and sexual violence (5.2%) compared to another study (Larrea-schiavon et al., 2021) conducted among Mexican adolescents in the same year. That study reported that 20.3% suffered physical violence, 35.0% psychological and 2.6% sexual. Only online bullying was almost three times higher than what was reported in our study as digital violence (12.3% vs 34.4%). An explanation for the differences between these studies could be due to the age range of the participants (12–19 vs 15–18) or the approach to ask the question (have experienced online harassment?). Likewise, virtual education increased the time spent using the internet, which could cause greater exposure to digital violence (Armitage, 2021). Our results showed that the frequent and very frequent use of social media and videogames increased the probability of receiving physical, psychological and digital violence, especially among women, and adolescents between 15 and 19 years of age, similar to what has been reported in other studies (Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, 2021; Quispe et al., 2021).

Prior to the pandemic, various studies had reported that for some women and their children the home was the most dangerous place to be, (ONU Mujeres, 2020; UNICEF México, 2020) and during the pandemic, several countries reported that violence against women increased, which was recorded by calls to helplines and assistance in shelters that reached their maximum capacity (Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, 2020). Factors such as increased stress, economic and food insecurity, unemployment, and movement restrictions contributed to the increase in levels of violence in homes (Chandan et al., 2020; World Health Organization, 2020).

Our results showed that employed adolescents receive more physical violence and perceived that they live in neglect. Due to the nature of this study, we cannot know if employment was sought after being subjected to physical violence, or if being employed exposed them to this type of violence. However, child work has been considered a risk factor for violence and an attack on the rights of children and adolescents, since it can impede their physical and mental development, becoming a risk factor in their adult life (Nova Melle, 2008). Various studies (Holt, Buckley, & Whelan, 2008; Renner & Slack, 2006) mention that the effects of physical violence in early stages of life have lasting effects on mental health, drug and alcohol misuse (especially in women), risky sexual behaviour, obesity and criminal behaviour, that persist into adulthood, moreover, they are also at risk of reproducing abuse and other types of violence when they are adults. Neglect is at least as harmful as physical or sexual violence in the long term, but has received less scientific and public attention (Gilbert et al., 2009; Pérez Candás, Ordoñez Alonso, & Amador Tejón, 2018).

Neglect was also associated with not knowing the father’s education and belonging to the highest tercile of the FAS. However, having a high grade-point average and mothers with high school education were less likely to report neglect. It is possible that the heads of households with greater economic resources spent more time away from home, which in turn causes adolescent to feel abandonment and to point out this absence as a failure to appropriately take care of their needs (Lopes da Rocha, 2002). Meanwhile, when the mother is the first caregiver and has a higher educational level, can make better decisions for the care and mental well-being of the child (Arroyo-Borrell, Renart, Saurina, & Saez, 2017). This finding of family factors is related to care, attention and the establishment of discipline, in addition, the absence of family supervision or the weakening of parental authority combined with violence as a form of communication in the family, are factors that affect in mental health disorders in the adolescent population (Rozemberg, Avanci, Schenker, & Pires, 2014). Given the mental health impact and social consequences of neglect on adolescents, more research should be conducted on the topic. A systematic review (Haslam & Taylor, 2022) shows that neglect increases the risk of involvement in gangs and relationships between risky peers, which increases the social violence experienced in our country.

The prevalence of depression was similar to the reported prior to the pandemic. In our sample, 3 out of 10 adolescents reported suffering from depression at the time of the survey. Systematic reviews report a global prevalence of 25% (González Rodríguez & Martínez Rubio, 2022). A previous study conducted among adolescents from Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco, prior to the pandemic, (Díaz-Andrade et al., 2022) reported 25.4% of moderate depression. Other studies (Maciel-Saldierna et al., 2022; Vásquez, 2013) with school children from Jalisco, report a difference in depression by sex. As has already been studied, violence can have repercussions in the loss of motivation, joy, the ability to create, to innovate, even in the desire to live (Quirós, 2007).

Studies carried out in Mexico indicate that adolescent women are more vulnerable to family violence (Cerecero-García, Macías-González, Arámburo-Muro, & Bautista-Arredondo, 2020; Suarez & Menkes, 2006). The adolescent women in our study were more likely to receive psychological, sexual, and digital violence compared to men, similar to what was reported in the statistics on violence against children and adolescent women in Mexico (Álvarez Gutiérrez & Castillo Koschnick, 2019). The state of constant alertness and vigilance in the face of imminent danger experiment by women victims of violence has direct consequences on the individual, the family, and the community-levels, hence the need to deepen the analysis within a broader context.

Depression was 1.67 times more likely among adolescent women than men, similar to results in other countries (Zhou et al., 2020b). These data highlight the inequality between men and women in Jalisco (Instituto Jalisciense de las Mujeres, 2015). However, it could be that women report more because it is more “acceptable” for women to talk about their feelings compared to men. Likewise, the fact that women tend to report more emotional or psychological disorders compared to men could be due to social and economic disadvantages as other studies have reported (Gaviria Arbelaez, 2009). Among the main factors associated with depression (Duan et al., 2020; González Rodríguez & Martínez Rubio, 2022; Panchal et al., 2021) are being between 15 and 19 years old, using social networks more than 5 hours a day and work during the pandemic. These factors are a reflection of the prevention measures taken during this period. The greater use of social networks as a means of communication and school attention possibly causes a deterioration in face-to-face interpersonal relationships, which affected all areas of adolescents lives. This period being relevant for socialization with peers (Meherali et al., 2021).

This study has some limitations, first our sample comes from schools in a region of Jalisco and results cannot be generalized to the general adolescents population. However, it provides relevant information from the factors associated. Violence can be considered a sensitive topic, which could possibly lead to underreporting of data because it is in the family environment. However, the presence of underreporting would only increase our estimates. Finally, the Beck questionnaire is a long instrument and could cause fatigue and make people respond without interest; however, the instrument is used and has been validated in the adolescent population (Beltrán et al., 2012).

Violence is a public health problem that should be addressed on early stages of life to guarantee the safe development of the population. The confinement experimented during the pandemic impacted the interpersonal relationships of the adolescent population, exacerbating violence, evidencing depression problems, more frequently in women, placing them at greater risk of experiencing depression and different types of violence. Given that the adolescent population has different risk factors, it is necessary to carry out specific interventions with a gender perspective to guarantee the protection of life with dignity and free of violence for adolescents.

Likewise, it is necessary to implement intersectoral social intervention strategies. We consider it necessary to address violence and depression through alliances from different social and institutional sectors (for example, educational system, health and families) and to be able to guarantee the exercise of human rights. On the other hand, the educational model on discipline or parenting within families in the South of Jalisco must guarantee the protection of life with dignity and free of violence.

Acknowledgments

Thanks to the health promoters of the Health Region, the coordinator of Social Participation and the head of the Health Region VI, for their support in the field work. Very especially, to the teaching staff of the middle and high schools that participated in Survey-Jalisco.

Funding

This publication resulted (in part) from research supported by Fogarty International Center of the National Institutes of Health under award number R01 TW010652. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.

Footnotes

Conflict of interest

The authors declare not to have any conflicts of interest

REFERENCES

  1. Alt P, Reim J, & Walper S (2021). Fall From Grace: Increased Loneliness and Depressiveness Among Extraverted Youth During the German COVID-19 Lockdown. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 31(3), 678–691. 10.1111/jora.12648 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Álvarez Gutiérrez MG, & Castillo Koschnick JG (2019). Panorama estadístico de la violencia contra niñas, niños y adolescentes en México. UNICEF, 106. https://www.unicef.org/mexico/media/1731/file/UNICEFPanoramaEstadistico.pdf [Google Scholar]
  3. Armitage R (2021). Bullying during COVID-19: the impact on child and adolescent health. British Journal of General Practice, 71(704), 122–122. 10.3399/bjgp21X715073 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Arroyo-Borrell E, Renart G, Saurina C, & Saez M (2017). Influence maternal background has on children’s mental health. International Journal for Equity in Health, 16(1), 63. 10.1186/s12939-017-0559-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Barrientos-Gutierrez I, Lozano P, Arillo-Santillan E, Morello P, Mejia R, & Thrasher JF (2019). “Technophilia”: A new risk factor for electronic cigarette use among early adolescents? Addictive Behaviors, 91, 193–200. 10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.09.004 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Beltrán M. del C., Freyre MÁ., & Hernández-Guzmán L. (2012). The beck Depression Inventory: Its validity in adolescent population. Terapia Psicologica, 30(1), 5–13. 10.4067/s0718-48082012000100001 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  7. Benjet C, Borges G, Medina-Mora ME, & Méndez E (2013). Chronic childhood adversity and stages of substance use involvement in adolescents. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 131(1–2), 85–91. 10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2012.12.002 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  8. Caffo E, Asta L, & Scandroglio F (2021). Predictors of mental health worsening among children and adolescents during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 34(6), 624–630. 10.1097/YCO.0000000000000747 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cerecero-García D, Macías-González F, Arámburo-Muro T, & Bautista-Arredondo S (2020). Síntomas depresivos y cobertura de diagnóstico y tratamiento de depresión en población mexicana. Salud Pública de México, 62(6, Nov-Dic), 840–850. 10.21149/11558 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Chandan JS, Taylor J, Bradbury-Jones C, Nirantharakumar K, Kane E, & Bandyopadhyay S (2020). COVID-19: a public health approach to manage domestic violence is needed. The Lancet Public Health, 5(6), e309. 10.1016/S2468-2667(20)30112-2 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Díaz-Andrade E, García-Ramírez J., López-Nava A., Michel-Jiménez S., & Ramos-Trujillo E. (2022). Depresión en adolescentes de Ciudad Guzmán, Jalisco México. Salud Jalisco, 9(2), 93–101. [Google Scholar]
  12. Duan L, Shao X, Wang Y, Huang Y, Miao J, Yang X, & Zhu G (2020). An investigation of mental health status of children and adolescents in china during the outbreak of COVID-19. Journal of Affective Disorders, 275, 112–118. 10.1016/j.jad.2020.06.029 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Gaviria Arbelaez SL (2009). ¿Por qué las mujeres se deprimen más que los hombres? Revista Colombiana de Psiquiatría, 38(2), 316–324. [Google Scholar]
  14. Gilbert R, Widom CS, Browne K, Fergusson D, Webb E, & Janson S (2009). Burden and consequences of child maltreatment in high-income countries. The Lancet, 373(9657), 68–81. 10.1016/S0140-6736(08)61706-7 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Gómez Macfarland CA, & Sánchez Ramírez MC (2020). Violencia familiar en tiempos de Covid-19. In Mirada Legislativa (Vol. 187). http://bibliodigitalibd.senado.gob.mx/handle/123456789/4891 [Google Scholar]
  16. González Rodríguez P, & Martínez Rubio V (2022). Durante la pandemia COVID-19 las enfermedades mentales se duplicaron en los adolescentes. Evid Pediatr, 18(3), 1–4. https://doi.org/https://evidenciasenpediatria.es/files/41-14148-RUTA/AVC_3_COVID_depresion.pdf [Google Scholar]
  17. Haslam Z, & Taylor EP (2022). The relationship between child neglect and adolescent interpersonal functioning: A systematic review. Child Abuse & Neglect, 125(January), 105510. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105510 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Holmes EA, O’Connor RC, Perry VH, Tracey I, Wessely S, Arseneault L, Ballard C, Christensen H, Cohen Silver R, Everall I, Ford T, John A, Kabir T, King K, Madan I, Michie S, Przybylski AK, Shafran R, Sweeney A, … Bullmore E (2020). Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science. The Lancet Psychiatry, 7(6), 547–560. 10.1016/S2215-0366(20)30168-1 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Holt S, Buckley H, & Whelan S (2008). The impact of exposure to domestic violence on children and young people: A review of the literature. Child Abuse & Neglect, 32(8), 797–810. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2008.02.004 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  20. Instituto Jalisciense de las Mujeres. (2015). Diagnóstico de Percepción sobre Derechos Humanos de las Mujeres e Igualdad de Género en la vida social, política, laboral y familiar. https://juntxs.jalisco.mx/sites/default/files/paginas/archivos/resultados_encuesta_percepcion_dhm_ijm.pdf [Google Scholar]
  21. Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Geografía, I. (2021). Encuesta Nacional sobre la Dinámica de las Relaciones en los Hogares| ENDIREH 2021|Principales Resultados. https://www.inegi.org.mx/contenidos/programas/endireh/2021/doc/endireh2021_presentacion_ejecutiva.pdf [Google Scholar]
  22. Kim J, Cardwell SM, & Lee Y (2021). Early Onset Delinquency and Violent Delinquency in Adolescence: The Role of Abusive Parents and Delinquent Peer Associations. Crime & Delinquency, 001112872110578. 10.1177/00111287211057861 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Larrea-schiavon S, López-lalinde L, & Gutiérrez JP (2021). Resultados del estudio sobre violencia en la era COVID-19 (VoCes-19): Línea base reporte. Population Council, 19, 1–154. https://knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org/departments_sbsr-pgy/1523/ [Google Scholar]
  24. Lopes da Rocha M (2002). Capítulo 2 - Contexto do adolescente. In Contini M. de L. Jeffery, Koller S. Helena, & Barros M. N. dos Santos(Eds.), Adolescência e psicologia:concepções, práticas e reflexões críticas (Primera). Conselho Federal de Psicologia. http://site.cfp.org.br/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/adolescencia1.pdf [Google Scholar]
  25. Maciel-Saldierna M, Elizondo-Hernández E, Cervantes-Guevara G, Cervantes-Pérez E, Cervantes-Cardona GA, Guzmán-Ramírez BG, Brancaccio-Pérez IV, Chejfec-Ciociano JM, Guzmán-Ruvalcaba MJ, Cifuentes-Andrade LR, Cueto-Valadez AE, Cueto-Valadez TA, Ibarra-Camargo SA, Mellado-Tellez MP, Barbosa-Camacho FJ, Fuentes-Orozco C, & González-Ojeda A (2022). Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress in Junior High School Students in Guadalajara, Mexico: A Cross-Sectional Survey Study. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(23), 15463. 10.3390/ijerph192315463 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  26. Marques ES, de Moraes CL, Hasselmann MH, Deslandes SF, & Reichenheim ME (2020). Violence against women, children, and adolescents during the COVID-19 pandemic: overview, contributing factors, and mitigating measures. Cadernos de Saúde Pública, 36(4), e00074420. 10.1590/0102-311X00074420 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  27. Martín del Campo-Ríos J, & Cruz-Torres CE (2020). Contextual violence and its link to social aggression: a study of community violence in Juárez. PeerJ, 8, e9162. 10.7717/peerj.9162 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Meherali S, Punjani N, Louie-Poon S, Rahim KA, Das JK, Salam RA, Lassi ZS, & Matos D (2021). Mental Health of Children and Adolescents Amidst COVID-19 and Past Pandemics: A Rapid Systematic Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health, 18, 3432. 10.3390/ijerph18073432 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Naciones Unidas O (2021). Encuesta de las Naciones Unidas sobre Juventudes de América Latina y el Caribe dentro del Contexto de la Pandemia del COVID-19. https://www.cepal.org/es/publicaciones/46990-encuesta-naciones-unidas-juventudes-america-latina-caribe-dentro-contexto-la [Google Scholar]
  30. Noriega Ruiz AJ, & Noriega Saravia SS (2021). Violencia intrafamiliar en el proceso de formación de los menores en Cartagena y sus repercusiones sociales. Saber, Ciencia y Libertad, 16(2). 10.18041/2382-3240/saber.2021v16n2.7752 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  31. Nova Melle P (2008). Trabajo infantil: los riesgos laborales en situaciones legalmente prohibidas y sus consecuencias para la salud y seguridad. Med Segur Trab, 54(213), 9–21. [Google Scholar]
  32. Mujeres ONU. (2020). El progreso de las mujeres en el mundo 2019–2020. Familias en un mundo cambiante. www.progress.unwomen.org%0ALas [Google Scholar]
  33. Organización Mundial de la Salud. (2006). Prevención de la violencia. Guía para aplicar las recomendaciones del informe mundial sobre la violencia y la salud. In Organización Mundial de la Salud. [Google Scholar]
  34. Orozco Henao EA, Marín Díaz BA, & Zuluaga Valencia JB (2020). Depresión Infanto-Juvenil y exposición temprana a la violencia. Revista Iberoamericana de Psicología, 13(3), 163–176. 10.33881/2027-1786.rip.13310 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  35. Panchal U, Salazar de Pablo G, Franco M, Moreno C, Parellada M, Arango C, & Fusar-Poli P (2021). The impact of COVID-19 lockdown on child and adolescent mental health: systematic review. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 1, 3. 10.1007/s00787-021-01856-w [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  36. Pérez A, Thrasher J, Monzón JC, Arillo-Santillán E, Barnoya J, & Mejía R (2021). La escala de afluencia familiar en la investigación sobre inequidades sociales en salud en adolescentes latinoamericanos. Salud Pública de México, 63(2, Mar-Abr), 201–210. 10.21149/11793 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Pérez Candás JI, Ordoñez Alonso MA, & Amador Tejón V (2018). Maltrato infantil por negligencia. Form Act Pediatr Aten Prim, 11(1), 25–36. www.fapap.es [Google Scholar]
  38. Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka. (2020). Violence against women and girls: the shadow pandemic. UK Women. https://www.unwomen.org/en/news/stories/2020/4/statement-ed-phumzile-violence-against-women-during-pandemic [Google Scholar]
  39. Quirós E (2007). El impacto de la violencia intrafamiliar: transitando de la desesperanza a la recuperación del derecho a vivir libres de violencia. Perspectivas Psicológicas, 3–4, 155–163. [Google Scholar]
  40. Quispe A, Collette C, Gomez S, Cecilia I, Dominguez Vergara M, & Alberto J (2021). Ciberbullying y depresión en estudiantes de secundaria de Lima Metropolitana. Repositorio Institucional - UCV. https://repositorio.ucv.edu.pe/handle/20.500.12692/75223 [Google Scholar]
  41. Rauschenberg C, Schick A, Goetzl C, Roehr S, Riedel-Heller SG, Koppe G, Durstewitz D, Krumm S, & Reininghaus U (2021). Social isolation, mental health, and use of digital interventions in youth during the COVID-19 pandemic: A nationally representative survey. European Psychiatry, 64(1), e20. 10.1192/j.eurpsy.2021.17 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  42. Renner LM, & Slack KS (2006). Intimate partner violence and child maltreatment: Understanding intra- and intergenerational connections. Child Abuse & Neglect, 30(6), 599–617. 10.1016/j.chiabu.2005.12.005 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Rossi R, Talevi D, Gregori E, Quarta E, Lucaselli A, & Pacitti F (2020). Early interpersonal violence mediates the effect of family history of mental disorder on suicide attempts in a non-clinical sample. Rivista Di Psichiatria, 55(1), 37–40. 10.1708/3301.32717 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Rozemberg L, Avanci J, Schenker M, & Pires T (2014). Resiliência, gênero e família na adolescência. Ciência & Saúde Coletiva, 19(3), 673–684. 10.1590/1413-81232014193.21902013 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  45. Secretariado Ejecutivo del Sistema Nacional de Seguridad Pública. (2022). Información sobre violencia contra las mujeres. http://secretariadoejecutivo.gob.mx/docs/pdfs/nueva-metodologia/Info_violencia_contra_mujeres_DIC2018.pdf [Google Scholar]
  46. SEGOB. (2020). Acuerdo por el que se Establecen Acciones Extraordinarias para Atender la Emergencia Sanitaria Generada por el Virus SARS-CoV2. Diario Oficial de La Federación. https://dof.gob.mx/nota_detalle.php?codigo=5590914&fecha=31/03/2020#gsc.tab=0 [Google Scholar]
  47. Shamah-Levy T, Romero-Martínez M, Barrientos-Gutiérrez T, Cuevas-Nasu L, Bautista-Arredondo S, Colchero MA, Gaona-Pineda EB, Lazcano-Ponce E, Martínez-Barnetche J, Alpuche-Arana C, R.-D. J. (2021). Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutrición 2020 sobre Covid-19. Resultados nacionales. (Pública I. N. de S.(ed.); Primera). INSP. [Google Scholar]
  48. Shamah-Levy T, Vielma-Orozco E, Heredia-Hernández O, Romero-Martínez M, Mojica-Cuevas J, Cuevas-Nasu L, Santaella-Castell JA R-DJE. (2020). Encuesta Nacional de Salud y Nutrición 2018–2019: Resultados Nacionales (Instituto Nacional de Salud Pública (ed.); Primera; ). https://www.icfes.gov.co/documents/20143/1323329/Informenacional saber 569 2012 2017.pdf [Google Scholar]
  49. Stata Statistical Software: Release 14. (n.d.). StataCorp 2017. [Google Scholar]
  50. Leticia Suarez, & Catherine Menkes. (2006). Violencia familiar ejercida en contra de los adolescentes mexicanos. Rev Saúde Pública, 40(4), 611–609. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Ughasoro MD, Onukwuli VO, Onwujekwe OE, Uzochukwu BSC, Ebenso B, Okoli CC, & Achor CF (2022). Violence and mental health among adolescents in South East Nigeria. Niger J Med, 31, 156–162. 10.4103/NJM.NJM [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. UNFPA, CONAPO, & IMJUVE. (2021). Situación de las personas adolescentes y jóvenes de Jalisco. Información oportuna para la toma de decisiones. [Google Scholar]
  53. UNICEF. (2021). La juventud opina sobre violencia durante la pandemia de la COVID-19. UNICEF. https://www.unicef.org/lac/la-juventud-opina-sobre-violencia-durante-la-pandemia-de-la-covid-19 [Google Scholar]
  54. UNICEF México. (2020). Protección de la niñez ante la violencia. Respuestas durante y después de COVID-19. Nota técnica. [Google Scholar]
  55. Vásquez A (2013). Depresión. Diferencia de género. Multimed, 17(3), 1–21. [Google Scholar]
  56. World Health Organization. (2020). Joint Leaders’ statement - Violence against children: A hidden crisis of the COVID-19 pandemic. https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/08-04-2020-joint-leader-s-statement---violence-against-children-a-hidden-crisis-of-the-covid-19-pandemic [Google Scholar]
  57. Zhou J, Yuan X, Qi H, Liu R, Li Y, Huang H, Chen X, & Wang G (2020). Prevalence of depression and its correlative factors among female adolescents in China during the coronavirus disease 2019 outbreak. Globalization and Health, 16(1), 69. 10.1186/s12992-020-00601-3 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  58. Zhou S-J, Zhang L-G, Wang L-L, Guo Z-C, Wang J-Q, Chen J-C, Liu M, Chen X, & Chen J-X (2020). Prevalence and socio-demographic correlates of psychological health problems in Chinese adolescents during the outbreak of COVID-19. European Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 29(6), 749–758. 10.1007/s00787-020-01541-4 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

RESOURCES