Psychological symptoms associated with self-reported events of COVID-19 contact, symptoms, or diagnosis: a large community-based survey among adults in Quebec, Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Psychological consequences of COVID-19 contact, symptoms, or diagnosis are being increasingly reported. Few studies have examined the psychological effects tied to these events, using an unaffected comparison group. Most did not consider confounding factors like fear and stigma. This study aims to (1) identify individual characteristics associated with COVID-19 contact/symptoms or diagnosis and (2) examine the independent association between COVID-19 contact/symptoms or diagnosis and psychological symptoms. METHODS: From September 2020 to February 2021, 20,327 adults participated in community-based surveys in Quebec. Using repeated cross-sectional online questionnaire, data were collected on probable generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) and major depression episode (MDE), using the GAD-7 and the PHQ-9 scales, respectively. Self-reported events of (1) contact with a case or symptoms of COVID-19, and (2) diagnosis of COVID-19 were examined, along with several sociodemographic and pandemic-related factors. RESULTS: COVID-19 contact, symptoms, or diagnosis was more frequent in young adults, healthcare or social services workers, adults living with children, and those reporting a greater sense of threat, stigma, financial losses, or daily stress. COVID-19 contact or symptoms and diagnosis were associated with probable MDE relative to the unaffected group (adjusted odds ratio [aOR]: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.12-1.39 and aOR:1.82, 95% CI: 1.48-2.2, respectively). Suicidal thoughts and psychomotor retardation were the symptoms most closely associated with a COVID-19 diagnosis. CONCLUSION: Results from this study stress the need for better understanding, recognition, and support for people suffering from psychological symptoms following a COVID-19 diagnosis.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".