Tag: long covid research

Living with “long COVID”: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence

Abstract:

Objectives: Long-term health consequences of coronavirus disease (COVID-19), also known as “long COVID,” has become a global health concern. In this systematic review, we aimed to synthesize the qualitative evidence on lived experiences of people living with long COVID that may inform health policymaking and practice.

Methods: We searched six major databases and additional sources and systematically retrieved relevant qualitative studies and conducted a meta-synthesis of key findings using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines and reporting standards of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) checklist.

Results: We found 15 articles representing 12 studies out of 619 citations from different sources. These studies provided 133 findings that were categorized into 55 categories. All categories were aggregated to the following synthesized findings: living with complex physical health problems, psychosocial crises of long COVID, slow recovery and rehabilitation, digital resources and information management, changes in social support, and experiences with healthcare providers, services, and systems. Ten studies were from the UK, and others were from Denmark and Italy, which highlights a critical lack of evidence from other countries.

Conclusions: More representative research is needed to understand long COVID-related experiences from diverse communities and populations. The available evidence informs a high burden of biopsychosocial challenges among people with long COVID that would require multilevel interventions such as strengthening health and social policies and services, engaging patients and caregivers in making decisions and developing resources, and addressing health and socioeconomic disparities associated with long COVID through evidence-based practice.

Source: Hossain MM, Das J, Rahman F, Nesa F, Hossain P, Islam AMK, Tasnim S, Faizah F, Mazumder H, Purohit N, Ramirez G. Living with “long COVID”: A systematic review and meta-synthesis of qualitative evidence. PLoS One. 2023 Feb 16;18(2):e0281884. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0281884. PMID: 36795701; PMCID: PMC9934341. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9934341/ (Full text)

Compliance challenges in a longitudinal COVID-19 cohort using wearables for continuous monitoring

Abstract:

Background: Wearables to Investigate the Long Term Cardiovascular and Behavioral Impacts of COVID-19 (WEAICOR) study is a prospective observational study using continuous monitoring to detect and analyze biometrics. Compliance to wearables was a major challenge when conducting the study and was crucial for the results.

Objective: The aim of this study is to evaluate patients’ compliance to wearable wristbands and determinants of compliance in a prospective COVID-19 cohort.

Methods: Biostrap wearable device was used to monitor participants’ biometric data. Compliance was calculated by dividing the total number of days in which transmissions were sent by the total number of days in the study. Univariate correlation was performed between compliance, days in the study and age, BMI, sex, symptom severity, and number of complications/comorbidites as independent variables. Also, multivariate linear regression was then performed with days in the study as a dependent variable to assess the power of different parameters in determining days in the study.

Results: On hundred twenty-two patients were included in the study. Patients were on average 43 years old and 32% were female. Age was found to be correlated with compliance (r=0.23, P=0.01). In addition, age (r=0.30, P=0.001), BMI (r=0.19, P=0.03) and severity of symptoms (r=0.19, P=0.03) were found to be correlated with days spent in the study. On multivariate analysis with days spent in the study as a dependent variable, only increased age was a significant determinant of compliance with wearables (adjusted R2 = 0.1, β = 1.6, P= 0.01).

Conclusions: Compliance is a major obstacle in remote monitoring studies and the reasons for a lack thereof are multifactorial. Patient factors such as age, in addition to environmental factors can affect compliance to wearables.

Source: Mekhael M, Ho C, Noujaim C, Assaf A, Younes H, El Hajjar AH, Chaudhry HA, Lanier B, Chouman N, Makan N, Shan B, Zhang Y, Dagher L, Kreidieh O, Marrouche N, Donnellan E. Compliance challenges in a longitudinal COVID-19 cohort using wearables for continuous monitoring. J Med Internet Res. 2023 Jan 6. doi: 10.2196/43134. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36763647. https://preprints.jmir.org/preprint/43134/accepted (Full text available as PDF file)

Comparability of control and comparison groups in studies assessing long COVID

Abstract:

Background: Awareness of long COVID began primarily through media and social media sources, which eventually led to the development of various definitions, based on methodologies of varying quality. We sought to characterize comparison groups in long COVID studies and evaluate comparability of the different groups.

Methods: We searched Embase, Web of Science, and PubMed for original research articles published in high-impact journals. We included studies on human patients with long COVID outcomes, and we abstracted study-related characteristics, as well as long COVID characteristics.

Results: Of the 83 studies, 3 were RCTs testing interventions for long COVID, and 80 (96.4%) were observational studies. Among the 80 observational studies, 76 (95%) were trying to understand the incidence, prevalence, and risk factors for long COVID, two (2.5%) examined prevention strategies, and 2 (2.5%) examined treatment strategies. Among those 80 studies, 45 (56.2%) utilized a control or comparison group and 35 (43.8%) did not. Compared to 95% of observational studies that documented symptoms or assessed risk factors, all randomized studies assessed treatment strategies. We found 48.8% of observational studies did any adjustment for covariates, including demographics or health status. Of those that did adjust for covariates, 15 (38.5%) adjusted for four or fewer variables. We found that 26.5% of all studies and 45.8% of studies with a control/comparator group matched participants on at least one variable.

Conclusion: Long COVID studies in high-impact journals primarily examine symptoms and risk factors of long COVID, often lack an adequate comparison group, and often do not control for potential confounders. Our results suggest that standardized definitions for long COVID, which are often based on data from uncontrolled and potentially biased studies, should be reviewed to ensure that they are based on objective data.

Source: Haslam A, Prasad V. Comparability of control and comparison groups in studies assessing long COVID. Am J Med. 2023 Jan 25:S0002-9343(23)00038-4. doi: 10.1016/j.amjmed.2023.01.005. Epub ahead of print. PMID: 36708796. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36708796/