MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3025154048 · doi:10.1002/mds.28116

Incidence of Anxiety in Parkinson's Disease During the Coronavirus Disease (<scp>COVID</scp>‐19) Pandemic

2020· letter· en· W3025154048 on OpenAlexaff
Mehri Salari, Alireza Zali, Farzad Ashrafi, Masoud Etemadifar, Soumya Sharma, Nastaran Hajizadeh, Helia Ashourizadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueMovement Disorders · 2020
Typeletter
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicCOVID-19 and Mental Health
Canadian institutionsLondon Health Sciences CentreWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnxietyMedicinePsychiatryBeck Anxiety InventoryPopulationDiseasePandemicIncidence (geometry)ReferralFamily medicineBeck Depression InventoryInternal medicineCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Environmental healthInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The recent pandemic of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) have forced countries to be under lockdown,1 with strict emphasis being placed on self-isolation and social distancing.2 The major impact of this mandate is on patients with chronic diseases.3 Parkinson's disease (PD) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease, and anxiety is one of the most frequent neuropsychiatric disorders in PD, with an incidence higher than in any other chronic medical diseases (38% vs. 11%).4 The recent outbreak of coronavirus in Iran could be a contributing factor for worsening anxiety in this group of individuals. Therefore, to test this hypothesis we undertook this study by quantifying anxiety levels using the Beck Anxiety Inventory. This cross-sectional, case-control survey approved by the Iran National Committee for Ethics in Biomedical Researches (IR.SBMU.MSP.REC.1399.033) to evaluate the level of anxiety among PD patients compared with the general population. The study was carried out using a web-based questionnaire keeping in accordance with the current recommendations of preventing in person interviews to limit person-to-person contact. The questionnaire was administered to 500 patients with PD who were being followed up at the referral Movement Disorders Center in Tehran. The questionnaire consisted of Beck Anxiety Inventory II–Persian, which was validated in Persian. We excluded those patients who had a history of psychosis or a Mini-Mental State Examination score of ≤12 based on medical records.4 The questionnaire was also broadcasted over the internet using the WeChat public platform and over the mainstream media for the control group. Histories of PD and dementia were the exclusion criteria for healthy controls. A total of 137 subjects were diagnosed cases of PD who responded to the questionnaire, 95 were caregivers of the PD subgroup, and 442 participants were designated as controls after they were age and gender matched to the patient population. Table 1 provides the demographic details and disease-related and COVID-19–related variables. The mean Beck Anxiety Inventory II total score among PD patients and the control group was 18.34 ± 11.37 and 8.9 ± 8.26, respectively. Severe anxiety was recorded in 25.5% of the cases and 4.8% of controls. Furthermore, 60% of the caregivers had anxiety with 4.2% demonstrating severe anxiety. Therefore, there was a significant difference between the 3 groups with regard to the frequency of anxiety, and it was highest in the PD subgroup followed by their caregivers. In addition, people with a higher education had more anxiety. There was no correlation between PD duration and severity of anxiety, but there was a strong correlation between severity of anxiety in PD patients and fear of getting COVID19, and this correlation was significantly higher than the control group. There was also a strong correlation between being infected by COVID-19 and anxiety in PD patients. We also found higher levels of anxiety in patients with PD who were concerned about drug availability during the lockdown as well as in those with comorbid chronic medical conditions. Although the long-term impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on PD patients is yet to be determined, it seems that these patients are more prone to psychological disturbances attributed to the imposition of quarantine measures, social distancing, and fear of getting infected by COVID-19. These psychological disturbances may be attributed to the worsening of a preexisting anxiety, uncertainty regarding obtaining medications during lockdown, and the perceived higher risk of contracting COVID-19 because of an underlying chronic medical condition. (1) Research Project: A. Conception, B. Organization, C. Execution; (2) Statistical Analysis: A. Design, B. Execution, C. Review and Critique; (3) Manuscript: A. Writing of the First Draft, B. Review and Critique. M.S.: 1A, 1B, 1C, 2C, 2B, 3A, 3B A.R.Z.: 1B, 1C, 3B F.A.: 1A, 1C, 3B M.E.: 1A, 1B, 2C, 3B S.S.H.: 1A, 2C, 3B N.H.:2A, 2B, 2B, 2C H.A.: 1C, 2C, 3A

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.351
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.056
GPT teacher head0.358
Teacher spread0.302 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations112
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueMovement DisordersSame topicCOVID-19 and Mental HealthFrench-language works237,207