MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4390423500 · doi:10.5455/pbs.20230810072043

The Predictors of Posttraumatic Stress Symptoms in Recovered COVID-19 Patients: Illness-Related Factors, Depressive and Anxiety Symptoms, Alexithymia and Social Support

2023· article· en· W4390423500 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Cansun Cam, Ömer Yanartaş, Erdoğdu Akça, Kemal Sayar

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAlexithymiaAnxietyDepression (economics)Clinical psychologyToronto Alexithymia ScaleSocial supportPsychiatryPsychologyCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Affect (linguistics)MedicineDiseaseInternal medicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Objective: The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound impact on millions of people, affecting their biological, psychological, and social well-being. The biological effects of SARS-CoV-2 have reportedly been linked to cognitive, emotional, and behavioral symptoms. Traumatic experiences associated with the disease and treatment procedures are regarded as potential risk factors for the emergence of posttraumatic stress symptoms (PTSS); as a result, the severity of the disease and the experience of hospitalization can significantly influence the mental well-being of individuals who have contracted COVID-19. This study aims to assess the factors that influence the development of PTSS among individuals who have recovered from COVID-19. Method: Sociodemographic features, hospitalization status, and physical symptoms of COVID-19 were assessed and PTSS, alexithymia, perceived social support, anxiety, and depression were examined with validated self-report questionnaires (Impacts of Events Scale-Revised, Toronto Alexithymia Scale-20, The Multidimensional Scale of Perceived Social Support, Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale) in a sample with 105 inpatients and 107 outpatients. Results: PTSS and depression scores of inpatients and outpatients were not significantly different (t(210)=1.246, p=0.214, and t(210)=-0.493, p=0.623, respectively), however, anxiety scores of outpatients were higher (t(209.880)=-2.938, p=0.004). Hospitalization did not significantly affect avoidance and hyperarousal symptoms but was associated with increased intrusion symptoms (t(210)=2.095, p=0.037). In a hierarchical regression model, predictors of PTSS were identified; in step 3 sleep disturbance and initial loss of smell and taste were significant factors (β=0.282, p<0.010; β=0.163, p=0.019, respectively). In step 4, the effects of depression, anxiety, and alexithymia were superior to all other variables (β=0.211, β=0.318, β=0.261, respectively, p<0.010) and initial loss of smell and taste and sleep disturbance did not remain significant in the final model. The final results indicated that psychological assessments made a distinctive contribution to the overall variation in Impacts of Events Scale-Revised scores, extending beyond demographic characteristics, individual variations, and COVID-19 symptoms. Additionally, social support had an indirect impact on PTSS, which was mediated by anxiety, depression, and alexithymia (total bunstd=-0.446, S.E.boot=0.057, CIboot 95% (-0.563, -0.338)). The direct effect of social support on PTSS was non-significant (cunstd=-0.004, S.E.=0.072, CI 95% (-0.146, 0.137)). Conclusion: This study contributes to the literature about the worldwide effects of COVID-19 on mental trauma by establishing the possible predictors for PTSS; and highlights the importance of reflecting on the COVID-19 history of patients and providing appropriate support.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.022
GPT teacher head0.313
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
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychiatry and Behavioral Sciences→Same topicPsychosomatic Disorders and Their Treatments→French-language works237,207→