Aina M Yañez

Dr. Aina M Yañez

Universitat Illes Balears
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

27Years (2000-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
18 May 2021 in JMIR mHealth and uHealth
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
MFMaria A Fiol-deRoque
Maria A Fiol-deRoque
MSMARIA J SERRANO-RIPOLL
MARIA J SERRANO-RIPOLL
RJRafael Jiménez
Rafael Jiménez
RCRocío Zamanillo Campos
Rocío Zamanillo Campos
Aina M YañezAina M Yañez
Aina M Yañez
IRIgnacio Ricci-Cabello
Ignacio Ricci-Cabello
Background: The global health emergency generated by the COVID-19 pandemic is posing an unprecedented challenge to health care workers, who are facing heavy workloads under psychologically difficult situations. Mental mobile Health (mHealth) interventions are now being widely deployed due to their attractive implementation features, despite the lack of evidence about their efficacy in this specific population and context. Objective: The aim of this trial is to evaluate the effectiveness of a psychoeducational, mindfulness-based mHealth intervention to reduce mental health problems in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: We conducted a blinded, parallel-group, controlled trial in Spain. Health care workers providing face-to-face health care to patients with COVID-19 were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive the PsyCovidApp intervention (an app targeting emotional skills, healthy lifestyle behavior, burnout, and social support) or a control app (general recommendations about mental health care) for 2 weeks. The participants were blinded to their group allocation. Data were collected telephonically at baseline and after 2 weeks by trained health psychologists. The primary outcome was a composite of depression, anxiety, and stress (overall score on the Depression Anxiety Stress Scale-21 [DASS-21]). Secondary outcomes were insomnia (Insomnia Severity Index), burnout (Maslach Burnout Inventory Human Services Survey), posttraumatic stress (Davidson Trauma Scale), self-efficacy (General Self-Efficacy Scale), and DASS-21 individual scale scores. Differences between groups were analyzed using general linear modeling according to an intention-to-treat protocol. Additionally, we measured the usability of the PsyCovidApp (System Usability Scale). The outcome data collectors and trial statisticians were unaware of the treatment allocation. Results: Between May 14 and July 25, 2020, 482 health care workers were recruited and randomly assigned to PsyCovidApp (n=248) or the control app (n=234). At 2 weeks, complete outcome data were available for 436/482 participants (90.5%). No significant differences were observed between the groups at 2 weeks in the primary outcome (standardized mean difference –0.04; 95% CI –0.11 to 0.04; P=.15) or in the other outcomes. In our prespecified subgroup analyses, we observed significant improvements among health care workers consuming psychotropic medications (n=79) in the primary outcome (–0.29; 95% CI –0.48 to –0.09; P=.004), and in posttraumatic stress, insomnia, anxiety, and stress. Similarly, among health care workers receiving psychotherapy (n=43), we observed improvements in the primary outcome (–0.25; 95% CI –0.49 to –0.02; P=.02), and in insomnia, anxiety, and stress. The mean usability score of PsyCovidApp was high (87.21/100, SD 12.65). After the trial, 208/221 participants in the intervention group (94.1%) asked to regain access to PsyCovidApp, indicating high acceptability. Conclusions: In health care workers assisting patients with COVID-19 in Spain, PsyCovidApp, compared with a control app, reduced mental health problems at 2 weeks only among health care workers receiving psychotherapy or psychotropic medications. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04393818; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04393818.

8 March 2019 in Frontiers in Psychology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
FPFabrice B. R. Parmentier
Fabrice B. R. Parmentier
MGMauro García-Toro
Mauro García-Toro
JGJavier García-Campayo
Javier García-Campayo
Aina M YañezAina M Yañez
Aina M Yañez
PAPilar Andres
Pilar Andres
MGMargalida Gili
Margalida Gili
The present study examined the effects of mindfulness on depression and anxiety, both direct and indirect through the mediation of four mechanisms of emotional regulation: worry, rumination, reappraisal and suppression. Path analysis was applied to data collected from an international and non-clinical sample of 1151 adults, including both meditators and non-meditators, who completed an online questionnaire battery. Our results show that mindfulness are related to lower levels of depression and anxiety both directly and indirectly. Suppression, reappraisal, worry and rumination all acted as significant mediators of the relationship between mindfulness and depression. A similar picture emerged for the relationship between mindfulness and anxiety, with the difference that suppression was not a mediator. Our data also revealed that the estimated number of hours of mindfulness meditation practice did not affect depression or anxiety directly but did reduce these indirectly by increasing mindfulness. Worry and rumination proved to be the most potent mediating variables. Altogether, our results confirm that emotional regulation plays a significant mediating role between mindfulness and symptoms of depression and anxiety in the general population and suggest that meditation focusing on reducing worry and rumination may be especially useful in reducing the risk of developing clinical depression.

13 January 2012 in European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
DHD. Hervás
D. Hervás
JRJ. Reina
J. Reina
Aina M YañezAina M Yañez
Aina M Yañez
JVJ. M. Valle
J. M. Valle
JFJ. Figuerola
J. Figuerola
JHJ. A. Hervás
J. A. Hervás

29 May 2013 in PLOS ONE
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Miquel Bennasar-VenyMiquel Bennasar-Veny
Miquel Bennasar-Veny
ALAngel A. Lopez-Gonzalez
Angel A. Lopez-Gonzalez
PTPedro Tauler
Pedro Tauler
MCMey L. Cespedes
Mey L. Cespedes
TVTeofila Vicente-Herrero
Teofila Vicente-Herrero
AAAntoni Aguilo
Antoni Aguilo
Background Several studies have shown a relation between the adipose tissue accumulation and a higher risk for developing metabolic and cardiovascular diseases. Thus, body fat content and, mainly, the fat distribution or adiposity could be considered as important indicators of health risk. In spite of presenting several limitations, BMI is the most widely used and accepted index for classifying overweight and obesity. The aim of the study was to evaluate the correlations between Body Adiposity Index (BAI), BMI and other adiposity indexes such as WC, WHR and WHtR with cardiovascular and metabolic risk factors. Furthermore, the behavior of BAI and BMI regarding the ability to discriminate overweight or obese individuals was also analyzed. Research Methodology/Principal Findings A cross-sectional study was conducted in Spanish Caucasian adult workers. Participants in the study (29.214 men and 21.040 women, aged 20–68 years) were systematically selected during their work health periodic examinations. BAI, BMI, WHR, WHtR, body weight, hip and waist circumference (WC) as well as systolic and diastolic blood pressure were measured. Serum levels of high density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), triglycerides (TG) and glucose were also determined. Results of the study indicated that BAI was less correlated with cardiovascular risk factors and metabolic risk factors than other adiposity indexes (BMI, WC and WHtR). The best correlations were found for WHtR. In addition, the BAI presented lower discriminatory capacity than BMI for diagnosing metabolic syndrome (MS) using both IDF and ATP III criteria. A different behavior of the BAI in men and women when considering the ability to discriminate overweight or obese individuals was also observed. Conclusions The adiposity indexes that include the waist circumference (WHtR and WC) may be better candidates than BAI and BMI to evaluate metabolic and cardiovascular risk in both clinical practice and research.

1 December 2012 in Chest
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
Aina M YañezAina M Yañez
Aina M Yañez
DGDolores Guerrero
Dolores Guerrero
RARigoberto Pérez de Alejo
Rigoberto Pérez de Alejo
FGFrancisco Garcia-Rio
Francisco Garcia-Rio
JÁJosé Luis Álvarez-Sala
José Luis Álvarez-Sala
AAAlvar Agustí
Alvar Agustí

Miquel Bennasar-VenyMiquel Bennasar-Veny
Miquel Bennasar-Veny
Aina M YañezAina M Yañez
Aina M Yañez
JPJordi Pericas
Jordi Pericas
LBLluís Ballester
Lluís Ballester
JFJuan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez
Juan Carlos Fernández-Domínguez
APANTONIO PONS
ANTONIO PONS
Health-related lifestyles in young adults are a public health concern because they affect the risk for developing noncommunicable diseases. Although unhealthy lifestyles tend to cluster together, most studies have analyzed their effects as independent factors. This study assessed the prevalence, association, and clustering of health-related lifestyles (smoking, alcohol consumption, physical activity, and quality of diet) among university students. This cross-sectional study examined a sample of student participants from the University of the Balearic Islands (n = 444; 67.8% females; mean age: 23.1 years). A self-reported questionnaire was used to assess health-related lifestyles. Men that consumed more alcohol, had less healthy diets, were more likely to be overweight, and performed more physical activity. Women had a higher prevalence of low weight and performed less physical activity. Physical activity had a negative association with time using a computer (OR: 0.85; 95% CI: 0.76, 0.95) and a positive association with adherence to the Mediterranean diet (OR: 1.16; 95% CI: 1.02, 1.32). Adherence to the Mediterranean diet had a negative association with tobacco consumption (OR: 0.52; 95% CI: 0.30, 0.91), and positive associations with having breakfast every day (OR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.05, 2.76) and consuming more daily meals (OR: 1.43; 95% CI: 1.10, 1.87). Cluster analysis indicated the presence of three distinct groups: Unhealthy lifestyles with moderate risk; unhealthy lifestyles with high risk; and healthy lifestyles with low risk. Health promotion interventions in the university environment that focus on multiple lifestyles could have a greater effect than interventions that target any single lifestyle.