MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4398236741 · doi:10.2196/47465

Patient-Reported Experiences of Persistent Post–COVID-19 Conditions After Hospital Discharge During the Second and Third Waves of the Pandemic in Switzerland: Cross-Sectional Questionnaire Study

2024· article· en· W4398236741 on OpenAlexvenueno aff
Nadine Tacchini-Jacquier, Sévrine Monnay, Nicolas Coquoz, Éric Bonvin, Henk Verloo

Bibliographic record

VenueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)PandemicPreprint2019-20 coronavirus outbreakSevere acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2)MedicineVirologyPhysicsOutbreakInfectious disease (medical specialty)

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Background Hospitalized patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 should recover within a few weeks. However, even those with mild versions can experience symptoms lasting 4 weeks or longer. These post–COVID-19 condition (PCC) comprise various new, returning, or ongoing symptoms that can last for months or years and cause disability. Few studies have investigated PCC using self-reports from discharged patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 to complement clinical and biomarker studies. Objective This study aimed to investigate self-reported, persistent PCC among patients infected with SARS-CoV-2 who were discharged during the second and third waves of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods We designed, pretested, and posted an ad hoc paper questionnaire to all eligible inpatients discharged between October 2020 and April 2021. At 4 months post discharge, we collected data on PCC and scores for the Multidimensional Fatigue Inventory (MFI), the Patient Health Questionnaire-4 (PHQ-4), a Brief Memory Screening Scale (Q3PC), and a posttraumatic stress disorder scale (PCL-5). Descriptive, inferential, and multivariate linear regression statistics assessed PCC symptomatology, associations, and differences regarding sociodemographic characteristics and hospital length of stay (LOS). We examined whether our variables of interest significantly predicted MFI scores. Results Of the 1993 valid questionnaires returned, 245 were from discharged patients with SARS-CoV-2 (median age 71, IQR 62.7-77 years). Only 28.2% (69/245) of respondents were symptom-free after 4 months. Women had significantly more persistent PCC symptoms than men (P≤.001). Patients with a hospital LOS ≥11 days had more PCC symptoms as well (P<.001)—women had more symptoms and longer LOS. No significant differences were found between age groups (18-64, 65-74, and ≥75 years old; P=.50) or between intensive care units and other hospitalization units (P=.09). Patients self-reported significantly higher PHQ-4 scores during their hospitalization than at 4 months later (P<.001). Three-fourth (187/245, 76.4%) of the respondents reported memory loss and concentration disorders (Q3PC). No significant differences in the median MFI score (56, IQR 1-3, range 50-60]) were associated with sociodemographic variables. Patients with a hospital LOS of ≥11 days had a significantly higher median PCL-5 score (P<.001). Multivariate linear regression allowed us to calculate that the combination of PHQ-4, Q3PC, and PCL-5 scores, adjusted for age, sex, and LOS (of either ≥11 days [median 2 symptoms, IQR 1-5] or <11 days), did not significantly predict MFI scores (R2=0.09; F4,7 =1.5; P=.22; adjusted R2=0.06). Conclusions The majority of inpatients infected with SARS-CoV-2 presented with PCC 4 months after discharge, with complex clinical pictures. Only one-third of them were symptom-free during that time. Based on our findings, MFI scores were not directly related to self-reported depression, anxiety, or posttraumatic scores adjusted for age, sex, or LOS. Further research is needed to explore PCC and fatigue based on self-reported health experiences of discharged inpatients infected with SARS-CoV-2.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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 score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.326
Teacher spread0.312 · 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
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJMIR Public Health and Surveillance→Same topicLong-Term Effects of COVID-19→French-language works237,207→