MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4366596394 · doi:10.3389/fmed.2023.1168628

Exploring long COVID condition in Latin America: Its impact on patients’ activities and associated healthcare use

2023· article· en· W4366596394 on OpenAlexaff
Adriana Angarita Fonseca, Rodrigo Torres‐Castro, Vicente Benavides-Córdoba, Santos Chero, Mauricio Morales-Satán, Bricia Hernández-López, Rafael Salazar-Pérez, Santiago Larrateguy, Diana C. Sanchez‐Ramirez

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Medicine · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsCentre hospitalier universitaire de QuébecUniversity of ManitobaUniversité du Québec en Abitibi-Témiscamingue
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMedicineHealth careHeadachesCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Latin AmericansActivities of daily livingPandemicFamily medicinePhysical therapyPsychiatry

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background: Studies exploring long COVID condition (LCC) in low- and middle-income countries are scarce. Further characterization of LCC patients experiencing activity limitations and their associated healthcare use is needed. This study aimed to describe LCC patients' characteristics, its impact on activities, and associated healthcare use in Latin America (LATAM). Participants: Individuals who (cared for someone or) had COVID-19 and could read, write, and comprehend Spanish and lived in a LATAM country were invited to complete a virtual survey. Sociodemographic characteristics, COVID-19 and LCC symptoms, activity limitations, and healthcare use. Results: Data from 2,466 people from 16 countries in LATAM were analyzed (females = 65.9%; mean age of 39.5 ± 53.3 years). 1,178 (48%) of the respondents had LCC symptoms (≥3 months). These were more likely to have COVID-19 earlier in the pandemic, were older, had no COVID vaccines, had more comorbidities, needed supplementary oxygen, and reported significantly more COVID-19 symptoms during the infectious period. 33% of the respondents visited a primary care provider, 13% went to the emergency department, 5% were hospitalized, 21% visited a specialist, and 32% consulted ≥1 therapist for LCC symptoms mainly extreme fatigue, sleep difficulties, headaches, muscle or joint pain, and shortness of breath with activity. The most consulted therapists were respiratory therapists (15%) and psychologists (14%), followed by physical therapists (13%), occupational therapists (3%), and speech pathologists (1%). One-third of LCC respondents decreased their regular activities (e.g., work, school) and 8% needed help with activities of daily living (ADLs). LCC respondents who reduced their activities reported more difficulty sleeping, chest pain with activity, depression, and problems with concentration, thinking, and memory, while those who needed help with ADLs were more likely to have difficulty walking, and shortness of breath at rest. Approximately 60% of respondents who experienced activity limitations sought a specialist and 50% consulted therapists. Conclusions and relevance: Results supported previous findings in terms of the LCC demographics, and provided insight into LCC impact on patients' activities and healthcare services used in LATAM. This information is valuable to inform service planning and resource allocation in alignment with the needs of this population.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.005
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.012
Threshold uncertainty score0.888

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.005
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.062
GPT teacher head0.349
Teacher spread0.287 · 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.

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

Citations32
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in MedicineSame topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19French-language works237,207