MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3133643926 · doi:10.1093/jcag/gwab002.174

A176 THE IMPACT OF COVID-19 ON ANXIETY, DEPRESSION, AND STRESS IN WOMEN WITH INFLAMMATORY BOWEL DISEASE: A CROSS-SECTIONAL SURVEY

2021· article· en· W3133643926 on OpenAlexaff
Parul Tandon, Katie O’Connor, Cynthia Maxwell, Geoffrey C. Nguyen, Vivian Huang

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the Canadian Association of Gastroenterology · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicEndometriosis Research and Treatment
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoMount Sinai Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineAnxietyDepression (economics)Inflammatory bowel diseaseMental healthPregnancyDiseaseCross-sectional studyPerceived Stress ScalePandemicHospital Anxiety and Depression ScaleInternal medicinePsychiatryCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Stress (linguistics)Pathology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Background Women with inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) are at an increased risk of mental-health illness and reduced fertility. Aims To determine the impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the mental-health and pregnancy plans of women with IBD. Methods Women with IBD (age 18–45) were asked to anonymously complete surveys on baseline demographics, IBD characteristics, and mental health comorbidities. They were also asked to comment on prior symptoms consistent with COVID-19 and whether they were tested for the virus. Finally, patients were asked to complete three mental health surveys to reflect on anxiety (Generalized Anxiety Disorder-7 (GAD7)), depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 (PHQ9)), and stress (Perceived Stress Scale (PSS)) symptoms prior to and during the pandemic. Total scores were reported as continuous variables and means with standard deviations (SD) were compared using paired T-tests. Results Twenty-nine patients (12 UC, 17 CD) were included. 14 patients were preconception, 12 were pregnant, and 3 were post-partum. The mean age was 31.4 (SD 3.7). Fifteen of 29 (51.7%) of patients were on anti-tumor necrosis factor therapy. Twelve (41.4%) and 6 (20.7%) patients had pre-morbid anxiety and depression prior to the pandemic. COVID-19 symptoms were reported in 8 patients (27.5%). Six patients had undergone COVID-19 testing, all of whom had a negative test. Four patients indicated that COVID-19 had negatively affected their plans for pregnancy, with reasons reported including fear of the hospital (n=1), fear of COVID-19 impact on the fetus (n=2), and uncertainty on the duration of COVID-19 (n=1). During the pandemic, fourteen of 28 (50%) patients experienced symptoms of anxiety (GAD score > 5), with a majority (70%) experiencing mild symptoms (score 5–9). During the pandemic, 60.7% (17/28) and 71.4% (20/28) reported symptoms of depression (PHQ9 > 4) and at least moderate stress (PSS > 14) respectively. Furthermore, compared to pre-pandemic, 57.1% (16/28) and 67.9% (19/28) had an increase in depression and stress symptoms during the pandemic respectively. This appeared to only apply to those with CD, but not UC (Table 1). Compared to pre-pandemic, those with stricturing CD appeared to have higher stress scores whereas those with fistulizing and perianal disease appeared to have higher depression scores during the COVID-19 pandemic (Table 1). A lower house-hold income and a reduction in exercise during the COVID-19 pandemic appeared to increase the risk of stress, depression, and anxiety symptoms. Conclusions Over half of women with IBD indicate worsening of anxiety, depression, and stress symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic. It remains critical that health-care professionals address these mental health concerns during these otherwise difficult times. Funding Agencies None

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.005
Threshold uncertainty score0.009

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.013
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.291 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
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

Citations1
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the Canadian Association of GastroenterologySame topicEndometriosis Research and TreatmentFrench-language works237,207