Dataset Information

Instruments to measure fear of COVID-19: a diagnostic systematic review.

ABSTRACT:

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has become a source of fear across the world. Measuring the level or significance of fear in different populations may help identify populations and areas in need of public health and education campaigns. We were interested in diagnostic tests developed to assess or diagnose COVID-19-related fear or phobia.

Methods

We performed a systematic review of studies that examined instruments diagnosing or assessing fear or phobia of COVID-19 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020197100). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health's Live map of covid-19 evidence, a database of pre-screened and pre-categorized studies. The Live map of covid-19 evidence identified references published since 1 December 2019 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following biweekly searches, two researchers independently categorized all studies according to topic (seven main topics, 52 subordinate topics), population (41 available groups), study design, and publication type. For this review, we assessed for eligibility all studies that had been categorized to the topic "Experiences and perceptions, consequences; social, political, economic aspects" as of 25 September 2020, in addition to hand-searching included studies' reference lists. We meta-analyzed correlation coefficients of fear scores to the most common reference tests (self-reports of anxiety, depression, and stress), and reported additional concurrent validity to other reference tests such as specific phobias. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 for the minority of studies that presented diagnostic accuracy statistics.

Results

We found 18 studies that validated fear instruments. Fifteen validated the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S). We found no studies that proposed a diagnosis of fear of COVID-19 or a threshold of significant/clinical versus non-significant/subclinical fear. Study quality was low, with the most common potential biases related to sampling strategy and un-blinded data analysis. The FSV-19S total score correlated strongly with severe phobia (r = 0.703, 95%CI 0.634-0.761) in one study, and moderately with anxiety in a meta-analysis.

Conclusions

The accuracy of the FSV-19S needs to be measured further using fear-related reference instruments, and future studies need to provide cut-off scores and normative values. Further evaluation of the remaining three instruments is required.

SUBMITTER: Muller AE

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8064424 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: Due to lack of preparedness of health systems, fast spread of the new virus, high mortality rates, and lack of a definite treatment, the outbreak of Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) led to high levels of fear and anxiety in different populations. In addition, isolation, mental disorders, and limitations in social interactions as a result of lockdown and travel ban increased the fear of the new coronavirus. Methods: International databases, including Scopus, PubMed, Web of Science, and Google scholar, were searched without any time limitation, and all observational studies published in English reporting the mean of fear of COVID-19 based on the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S) were included in the analysis. Methodological quality was assessed using the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) guidelines. Random effects model, subgroup analysis, and meta-regression analysis were used to analyze the data. Heterogeneity across studies was examined using Cochran's Q test and I 2 statistic. All the statistical analyses were conducted using R software v4.0.3. Results: A total of 44 articles with a sample size of 52,462 were reviewed. A pooled mean of 18.57 was found for fear of COVID-19. The mean of fear of COVID-19 was higher in women than in men (20.67 vs. 18.21). The highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 had been found in Asia (18.36) and Australia (17.43) based on continent, and in hospital staff (19.51) and college students (17.95) based on target population, respectively. In addition, the highest and lowest means of fear of COVID-19 were related to items #1 and #3 of the scale, respectively. According to the results of meta-regression analysis, there was no significant association between the mean of fear of COVID-19 and sample size and participants' age. In addition, publication error was not significant (P = 0.721). Conclusion: The mean of fear of COVID-19 was high around the world; therefore, it seems necessary to pay more attention to the negative effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health.

Project description:BackgroundSexual desire is one of the domains of sexual function with multiple dimensions, which commonly affects men and women around the world. Classically, its assessment has been applied through self-report tools; however, an issue is related to the evidence level of these questionnaires and their validity. Therefore, a systematic review addressing the available questionnaires is really relevant, since it will be able to show their psychometric properties and evidence levels.MethodA systematic review was carried out in the PubMed, EMBASE, PsycINFO, Science Direct, and Web of Science databases. The search strategy was developed according to the following research question and combination of descriptors and keywords, including original studies with no limit of publication date and in Portuguese, English, and Spanish. Two reviewers carried out the selection of articles by abstracts and full texts as well as the analysis of the studies independently. The methodological quality of the instruments was evaluated by the COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health status Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist.ResultsThe search resulted in 1203 articles, of which 15 were included in the review. It identified 10 instruments originally developed in the English language. Unsatisfactory results on methodological quality were evidenced in cultural adaptation studies with no description of the steps of the processes and inadequacy of techniques and parameters of adequacy for models. The Principal Component Analysis with Varimax rotation predominated in the studies.ConclusionsThe limitation of the techniques applied in the validation process of the reviewed instruments was evident. A limitation was observed in the number of adaptations conducted and contexts to which the instruments were applied, making it impossible to reach a better understanding of the functioning of instruments. In future studies, the use of robust techniques can ensure the quality of the psychometric properties and the accuracy and stability of instruments. A detailed description of procedures and results in validation studies may facilitate the selection and use of instruments in the academic and/or clinical settings.Systematic review registrationPROSPERO CRD42018085706.

Project description:BackgroundMental health issue among college students is routinely a major public health concern, and coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic may have exacerbated the students' mental health issues which include psychological distress, panic disorder, insomnia, and posttraumatic stress symptoms. However, few studies reached a consensus on the impact of COVID-19 fear on mental health among college students. Therefore, we aimed to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis that quantitatively synthesized the fear among college students during the COVID-19 pandemic.MethodsPubMed, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO electronic databases were systematically searched to identify cross-sectional study reporting the state of COVID-19 fear examined by the Fear of COVID-19 Scale (FCV-19S) published up until November 20, 2021. Methodological quality was complied with the evaluation criteria of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The random effects model was employed to estimate the pooled mean of FCV-19S score. Subgroup analysis and meta-regression analysis were also conducted. Publication bias was assessed by Begg's test and funnel plot.ResultsA total of 16 studies with a sample size of 11,872 were included. A pooled mean of FCV-19S score was 17.60 [95% confidence interval (CI): 16.41-18.78]. The mean of COVID-19 fear in women (17.11, 95% CI: 16.59-17.64) was higher than that in men (15.21, 95% CI: 14.33-16.08). The highest and lowest pooled means of FCV-19S score were observed in the studies conducted in multiple countries that include Israel, Russian, and Belarus (21.55, 95% CI: 20.77-22.33) and in Europe (16.52, 95% CI: 15.26-17.77), respectively. No significant publication bias was detected by Begg's test.ConclusionsCollege students experienced a moderate level of fear caused by COVID-19 pandemic. It is necessary to design and implement prevention programs that target the mental health of college students.Systematic review registrationhttps://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021287017, identifier: CRD42021287017.

Project description:ObjectiveTo determine the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for coronavirus disease-2019 (covid-19).DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis.Data sourcesMedline, bioRxiv, and medRxiv from 1 January to 30 April 2020, using subject headings or subheadings combined with text words for the concepts of covid-19 and serological tests for covid-19.Eligibility criteria and data analysisEligible studies measured sensitivity or specificity, or both of a covid-19 serological test compared with a reference standard of viral culture or reverse transcriptase polymerase chain reaction. Studies were excluded with fewer than five participants or samples. Risk of bias was assessed using quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies 2 (QUADAS-2). Pooled sensitivity and specificity were estimated using random effects bivariate meta-analyses.Main outcome measuresThe primary outcome was overall sensitivity and specificity, stratified by method of serological testing (enzyme linked immunosorbent assays (ELISAs), lateral flow immunoassays (LFIAs), or chemiluminescent immunoassays (CLIAs)) and immunoglobulin class (IgG, IgM, or both). Secondary outcomes were stratum specific sensitivity and specificity within subgroups defined by study or participant characteristics, including time since symptom onset.Results5016 references were identified and 40 studies included. 49 risk of bias assessments were carried out (one for each population and method evaluated). High risk of patient selection bias was found in 98% (48/49) of assessments and high or unclear risk of bias from performance or interpretation of the serological test in 73% (36/49). Only 10% (4/40) of studies included outpatients. Only two studies evaluated tests at the point of care. For each method of testing, pooled sensitivity and specificity were not associated with the immunoglobulin class measured. The pooled sensitivity of ELISAs measuring IgG or IgM was 84.3% (95% confidence interval 75.6% to 90.9%), of LFIAs was 66.0% (49.3% to 79.3%), and of CLIAs was 97.8% (46.2% to 100%). In all analyses, pooled sensitivity was lower for LFIAs, the potential point-of-care method. Pooled specificities ranged from 96.6% to 99.7%. Of the samples used for estimating specificity, 83% (10 465/12 547) were from populations tested before the epidemic or not suspected of having covid-19. Among LFIAs, pooled sensitivity of commercial kits (65.0%, 49.0% to 78.2%) was lower than that of non-commercial tests (88.2%, 83.6% to 91.3%). Heterogeneity was seen in all analyses. Sensitivity was higher at least three weeks after symptom onset (ranging from 69.9% to 98.9%) compared with within the first week (from 13.4% to 50.3%).ConclusionHigher quality clinical studies assessing the diagnostic accuracy of serological tests for covid-19 are urgently needed. Currently, available evidence does not support the continued use of existing point-of-care serological tests.Study registrationPROSPERO CRD42020179452.