Over the COVID-19 pandemic, the impact of enduring mental health on healthcare workers has become increasingly evident. This review focuses on post-pandemic mental health challenges faced by healthcare personnel in Latin America. This highlights the persistent burden on healthcare workers, especially women, which is exacerbated by economic disparities, inadequacies in the healthcare system, and ongoing occupational stressors. Our literature review, utilizing databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, scrutinized the mental health status of healthcare professionals in the region after the pandemic’s peak. The analysis indicated sustained levels of psychological distress, with frontline workers and women continuing to be affected disproportionately. These findings emphasize the urgent need for personalized interventions to effectively address the complex mental health challenges in this context. This review advocates strategic interventions, including tailored psychological support, innovative diagnostics, and technological solutions, integrated into patient-centered care models. Such approaches aim to enhance the mental resilience and overall well-being of healthcare professionals across Latin America in the post-COVID era.

Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs) are associated with psychological difficulties across the life course, making their assessment important for developmental adversity research. This pilot compared a conventional 10-item questionnaire (ACE-10) with a modified 14-item version (ACE-14) in a school-based convenience sample of 93 parents and guardians in Ecuador. Participants completed both versions in Spanish about their own childhood; ACE-14 responses were mapped to 10 domains. Paired analyses examined agreement on individual adversity domains, total scores, and exposure categories using confidence intervals (CIs), McNemar tests, and Holm adjustment for multiple comparisons. Mean domain counts were similar (1.23 versus 1.25), but Bland–Altman limits for individual score differences were −2.00 to 2.04 domains. Any ACE was reported by 47 versus 56 participants (difference 9.7 percentage points; Holm-adjusted p = 0.099). Deprivation or impaired caregiving showed the clearest directional difference: 12 participants endorsed mapped ACE-14 only and one endorsed ACE-10 only (difference 11.8 percentage points, 95% CI [5.1, 20.3]; domain-adjusted p = 0.023; exact-test adjusted p = 0.034). Forty-five participants (48.4%) gave different answers for at least one domain. The study did not assess how often answers would change if the same questionnaire were completed twice. These findings show that similar average scores can conceal differences in individual exposure classification. Future studies should use cognitive interviews, randomized questionnaire order, and repeated administration of the same version to clarify how wording and question format contribute to these differences.