Dataset Information

COVID-19 related concerns of people with long-term respiratory conditions: a qualitative study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic is having profound psychological impacts on populations globally, with increasing levels of stress, anxiety, and depression being reported, especially in people with pre-existing medical conditions who appear to be particularly vulnerable. There are limited data on the specific concerns people have about COVID-19 and what these are based on.

Methods

The aim of this study was to identify and explore the concerns of people with long-term respiratory conditions in the UK regarding the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and how these concerns were affecting them. We conducted a thematic analysis of free text responses to the question "What are your main concerns about getting coronavirus?", which was included in the British Lung Foundation/Asthma UK (BLF-AUK) partnership COVID-19 survey, conducted between the 1st and 8th of April 2020. This was during the 3rd week of the UK's initial 'social distancing measures' which included advice to stay at home and only go outside for specific limited reasons.

Results

7039 responses were analysed, with respondents from a wide range of age groups (under 17 to over 80), gender, and all UK nations. Respondents reported having asthma (85%), COPD (9%), bronchiectasis (4%), interstitial lung disease (2%), or 'other' lung diseases (e.g. lung cancer) (1%). Four main themes were identified: (1) vulnerability to COVID-19; (2) anticipated experience of contracting COVID-19; (3) pervasive uncertainty; and (4) inadequate national response.

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic is having profound psychological impacts. The concerns we identified largely reflect contextual factors, as well as their subjective experience of the current situation. Hence, key approaches to reducing these concerns require changes to the reality of their situation, and are likely to include (1) helping people optimise their health, limit risk of infection, and access necessities; (2) minimising the negative experience of disease where possible, (3) providing up-to-date, accurate and consistent information, (4) improving the government and healthcare response.

SUBMITTER: Philip KEJ

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7724437 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundMultiple long-term conditions-the co-existence of two or more chronic health conditions in an individual-present an increasing challenge to populations and healthcare systems worldwide. This challenge is keenly felt in hospital settings where care is oriented around specialist provision for single conditions. The aim of this scoping review was to identify and summarise published qualitative research on the experiences of hospital care for people living with multiple long-term conditions, their informal caregivers and healthcare professionals.MethodsWe undertook a scoping review, following established guidelines, of primary qualitative research on experiences of hospital care for people living with multiple long-term conditions published in peer-reviewed journals between Jan 2010 and June 2022. We conducted systematic electronic searches of MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycInfo, Proquest Social Science Premium, Web of Science, Scopus and Embase, supplemented by citation tracking. Studies were selected for inclusion by two reviewers using an independent screening process. Data extraction included study populations, study design, findings and author conclusions. We took a narrative approach to reporting the findings.ResultsOf 8002 titles and abstracts screened, 54 papers reporting findings from 41 studies conducted in 14 countries were identified as eligible for inclusion. The perspectives of people living with multiple long-term conditions (21 studies), informal caregivers (n = 13) and healthcare professionals (n = 27) were represented, with 15 studies reporting experiences of more than one group. Findings included poor service integration and lack of person-centred care, limited confidence of healthcare professionals to treat conditions outside of their specialty, and time pressures leading to hurried care transitions. Few studies explored inequities in experiences of hospital care.ConclusionsQualitative research evidence on the experiences of hospital care for multiple long-term conditions illuminates a tension between the desire to provide and receive person-centred care and time pressures inherent within a target-driven system focussed on increasing specialisation, reduced inpatient provision and accelerated journeys through the care system. A move towards more integrated models of care may enable the needs of people living with multiple long-term conditions to be better met. Future research should address how social circumstances shape experiences of care.

Project description:Patients with post-coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) conditions typically experience cognitive problems. Some studies have linked COVID-19 severity with long-term cognitive damage, while others did not observe such associations. This discrepancy can be attributed to methodological and sample variations. We aimed to clarify the relationship between COVID-19 severity and long-term cognitive outcomes and determine whether the initial symptomatology can predict long-term cognitive problems. Cognitive evaluations were performed on 109 healthy controls and 319 post-COVID individuals categorized into three groups according to the WHO clinical progression scale: severe-critical (n = 77), moderate-hospitalized (n = 73), and outpatients (n = 169). Principal component analysis was used to identify factors associated with symptoms in the acute-phase and cognitive domains. Analyses of variance and regression linear models were used to study intergroup differences and the relationship between initial symptomatology and long-term cognitive problems. The severe-critical group performed significantly worse than the control group in general cognition (Montreal Cognitive Assessment), executive function (Digit symbol, Trail Making Test B, phonetic fluency), and social cognition (Reading the Mind in the Eyes test). Five components of symptoms emerged from the principal component analysis: the "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic" "Digestive/Headache", "Respiratory/Fever/Fatigue/Psychiatric" and "Smell/ Taste" components were predictors of Montreal Cognitive Assessment scores; the "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic" component predicted attention and working memory; the "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic" and "Respiratory/Fever/Fatigue/Psychiatric" components predicted verbal memory, and the "Respiratory/Fever/Fatigue/Psychiatric," "Neurologic/Pain/Dermatologic," and "Digestive/Headache" components predicted executive function. Patients with severe COVID-19 exhibited persistent deficits in executive function. Several initial symptoms were predictors of long-term sequelae, indicating the role of systemic inflammation and neuroinflammation in the acute-phase symptoms of COVID-19." Study Registration: www.ClinicalTrials.gov , identifier NCT05307549 and NCT05307575.

Project description:BackgroundPatients' beliefs about treatment influence treatment engagement and adherence. The Necessity-Concerns Framework postulates that adherence is influenced by implicit judgements of personal need for the treatment (necessity beliefs) and concerns about the potential adverse consequences of taking it.ObjectiveTo assess the utility of the NCF in explaining nonadherence to prescribed medicines.Data sourcesWe searched EMBASE, Medline, PsycInfo, CDSR/DARE/CCT and CINAHL from January 1999 to April 2013 and handsearched reference sections from relevant articles.Study eligibility criteriaStudies using the Beliefs about Medicines Questionnaire (BMQ) to examine perceptions of personal necessity for medication and concerns about potential adverse effects, in relation to a measure of adherence to medication.ParticipantsPatients with long-term conditions.Study appraisal and synthesis methodsSystematic review and meta-analysis of methodological quality was assessed by two independent reviewers. We pooled odds ratios for adherence using random effects models.ResultsWe identified 3777 studies, of which 94 (N = 25,072) fulfilled the inclusion criteria. Across studies, higher adherence was associated with stronger perceptions of necessity of treatment, OR = 1.742, 95% CI [1.569, 1.934], p<0.0001, and fewer Concerns about treatment, OR = 0.504, 95% CI: [0.450, 0.564], p<0.0001. These relationships remained significant when data were stratified by study size, the country in which the research was conducted and the type of adherence measure used.LimitationsFew prospective longitudinal studies using objective adherence measures were identified.ConclusionsThe Necessity-Concerns Framework is a useful conceptual model for understanding patients' perspectives on prescribed medicines. Taking account of patients' necessity beliefs and concerns could enhance the quality of prescribing by helping clinicians to engage patients in treatment decisions and support optimal adherence to appropriate prescriptions.