MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W4312559233 · doi:10.2196/40821

The Relationship Between a History of High-risk and Destructive Behaviors and COVID-19 Infection: Preliminary Study

2022· article· en· W4312559233 sur OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nicole L. Vike, Sumra Bari, Khrystyna Stetsiv, Sean Woodward, Shamal Lalvani, Leandros Stefanopoulos, Byoung Woo Kim, Nicos Maglaveras, Aggelos K. Katsaggelos

Notice bibliographique

RevueJMIR Formative Research · 2022
Typearticle
Langueen
DomainePsychology
ThématiqueCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesOffice of Naval ResearchFeinberg School of MedicineNorthwestern University
Mots-clésCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicMental healthMedicinePsychologyClinical psychologySevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)Psychiatry2019-20 coronavirus outbreakDiseaseInternal medicinePathologyInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has heightened mental health concerns, but the temporal relationship between mental health conditions and SARS-CoV-2 infection has not yet been investigated. Specifically, psychological issues, violent behaviors, and substance use were reported more during the COVID-19 pandemic than before the pandemic. However, it is unknown whether a prepandemic history of these conditions increases an individual's susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to better understand the psychological risks underlying COVID-19, as it is important to investigate how destructive and risky behaviors may increase a person's susceptibility to COVID-19. METHODS: In this study, we analyzed data from a survey of 366 adults across the United States (aged 18 to 70 years); this survey was administered between February and March of 2021. The participants were asked to complete the Global Appraisal of Individual Needs-Short Screener (GAIN-SS) questionnaire, which indicates an individual's history of high-risk and destructive behaviors and likelihood of meeting diagnostic criteria. The GAIN-SS includes 7 questions related to externalizing behaviors, 8 related to substance use, and 5 related to crime and violence; responses were given on a temporal scale. The participants were also asked whether they ever tested positive for COVID-19 and whether they ever received a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19. GAIN-SS responses were compared between those who reported and those who did not report COVID-19 to determine if those who reported COVID-19 also reported GAIN-SS behaviors (Wilcoxon rank sum test, α=.05). In total, 3 hypotheses surrounding the temporal relationships between the recency of GAIN-SS behaviors and COVID-19 infection were tested using proportion tests (α=.05). GAIN-SS behaviors that significantly differed (proportion tests, α=.05) between COVID-19 responses were included as independent variables in multivariable logistic regression models with iterative downsampling. This was performed to assess how well a history of GAIN-SS behaviors statistically discriminated between those who reported and those who did not report COVID-19. RESULTS: Those who reported COVID-19 more frequently indicated past GAIN-SS behaviors (Q<0.05). Furthermore, the proportion of those who reported COVID-19 was higher (Q<0.05) among those who reported a history of GAIN-SS behaviors; specifically, gambling and selling drugs were common across the 3 proportion tests. Multivariable logistic regression revealed that GAIN-SS behaviors, particularly gambling, selling drugs, and attention problems, accurately modeled self-reported COVID-19, with model accuracies ranging from 77.42% to 99.55%. That is, those who exhibited destructive and high-risk behaviors before and during the pandemic could be discriminated from those who did not exhibit these behaviors when modeling self-reported COVID-19. CONCLUSIONS: This preliminary study provides insights into how a history of destructive and risky behaviors influences infection susceptibility, offering possible explanations for why some persons may be more susceptible to COVID-19, potentially in relation to reduced adherence to prevention guidelines or not seeking vaccination.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: Observationnel
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: Empirique
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,015
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,029

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,007
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,001
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0010,001
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,001
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0050,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,210
Tête enseignante GPT0,515
Écart entre enseignants0,305 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations5
Publié2022
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueJMIR Formative Research→Même sujetCOVID-19 and Mental Health→Travaux en français237 207→