Patient-reported health outcomes of SARS-CoV-2–tested patients presenting to emergency departments: a propensity score–matched prospective cohort study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to compare the long-term physical and mental health outcomes of matched severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative patients controlling for seasonal effects. STUDY DESIGN: This was a retrospective cohort study. METHODS: This study enrolled patients presenting to emergency departments participating in the Canadian COVID-19 Emergency Department Rapid Response Network. We enrolled consecutive eligible consenting patients who presented between March 1, 2020, and July 14, 2021, and were tested for SARS-CoV-2. Research assistants randomly selected four site and date-matched SARS-CoV-2-negative controls for every SARS-CoV-2-positive patient and interviewed them at least 30 days after discharge. We used propensity scores to match patients by baseline characteristics and used linear regression to compare Veterans RAND 12-item physical health component score (PCS) and mental health component scores (MCS), with higher scores indicating better self-reported health. RESULTS: We included 1170 SARS-CoV-2-positive patients and 3716 test-negative controls. The adjusted mean difference for PCS was 0.50 (95% confidence interval [CI]: -0.36, 1.36) and -1.01 (95% CI: -1.91, -0.11) for MCS. Severe disease was strongly associated with worse PCS (β = -7.4; 95% CI: -9.8, -5.1), whereas prior mental health illness was strongly associated with worse MCS (β = -5.4; 95% CI: -6.3, -4.5). CONCLUSION: Physical health, assessed by PCS, was similar between matched SARS-CoV-2-positive and SARS-CoV-2-negative patients, whereas mental health, assessed by MCS, was worse during a time when the public experienced barriers to care. These results may inform the development and prioritization of support programs for patients.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".