MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4393053510 · doi:10.52225/narra.v4i1.658

Factors associated with cognitive impairment and the quality-of-life among COVID-19 survivors working as healthcare workers

2024· article· en· W4393053510 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Sondang RA. Sirait, Bintang Yinke Magdalena Sinaga, Amira Permatasari Tarigan, Arlinda Sari Wahyuni

Bibliographic record

VenueNarra J · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicHealth and Well-being Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersUniversitas Sumatera Utara
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)Health careCognitive impairmentQuality of life (healthcare)2019-20 coronavirus outbreakCognitionSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)PsychologyMedicineGerontologyNursingPsychiatryDiseaseVirology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prolonged physical and mental health changes, known as post-COVID conditions (PCC), could impair the quality-of-life (QoL) of healthcare workers. The aim of this study was to identify factors that contribute to cognitive impairments and QoL among COVID-19 survivors working as healthcare workers. This cross-sectional study involved healthcare workers at Prof. Dr. Chairuddin P. Lubis Universitas Sumatera Utara Hospital, Medan, Indonesia. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment (MoCA) was used to assess the cognitive function, while the World Health Organization Quality-of-Life Brief Version (WHOQOL-BREF) questionnaire was used to evaluate the QoL. Factors associated with cognitive and QoL status were examined using Mann-Whitney and Chi-squared tests. A total of 100 COVID-19 survivors were included in the study, most of whom were female (74%), aged ≤35 years (95%), and were doctors (62%). Only 22% of the participants had a normal BMI, 93% had a history of mild COVID-19, and 54% had one comorbidity. The Overall MoCA score averaged 24.18±2.86, indicating mild cognitive impairment among the groups. The distribution of MoCA scores had similar patterns with no significant differences based on age, gender, comorbidities, BMI, COVID-19 severity, and frequency of infection. Interestingly, the number of vaccine doses received by the participants had a statistically significant associated with MoCA scores of which those receiving more than two doses had higher cognitive scores than those with only two doses (p=0.008). Based on categorized MoCA scores (normal vs cognitive impairment), none assessed factors were not significantly associated with cognitive outcomes. The WHOQOL-BREF scores ranged from 62.5 to 95.5, with a mean of 83.67±7.03. None of the assessed factors were associated with WHOQOL-BREF scores among COVID-19 survivors. These findings highlight the need for further study to explore the protective role of vaccination frequency in cognitive impairment and the factors underlying the resilience in QoL among survivors.

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)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.015
Threshold uncertainty score0.987

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.111
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.306 · 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNarra JSame topicHealth and Well-being StudiesFrench-language works237,207