Dataset Information

Learning From the Experiences of COVID-19 Survivors: Web-Based Survey Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

There are still many unanswered questions about the novel coronavirus; however, a largely underutilized source of knowledge is the millions of people who have recovered after contracting the virus. This includes a majority of undocumented cases of COVID-19, which were classified as mild or moderate and received little to no clinical care during the course of illness.

Objective

This study aims to document and glean insights from the experiences of individuals with a first-hand experience in dealing with COVID-19, especially the so-called mild-to-moderate cases that self-resolved while in isolation.

Methods

This web-based survey study called C19 Insider Scoop recruited adult participants aged 18 years or older who reside in the United States and had tested positive for COVID-19 or antibodies. Participants were recruited through various methods, including online support groups for COVID-19 survivors, advertisement in local news outlets, as well as through professional and other networks. The main outcomes measured in this study included knowledge of contraction or transmission of the virus, symptoms, and personal experiences on the road to recovery.

Results

A total of 72 participants (female, n=53; male, n=19; age range: 18-73 years; mean age: 41 [SD 14] years) from 22 US states were enrolled in this study. The top known source of how people contracted SARS-CoV-2, the virus known to cause COVID-19, was through a family or household member (26/72, 35%). This was followed by essential workers contracting the virus through the workplace (13/72, 18%). Participants reported up to 27 less-documented symptoms that they experienced during their illness, such as brain or memory fog, palpitations, ear pain or discomfort, and neurological problems. In addition, 47 of 72 (65%) participants reported that their symptoms lasted longer than the commonly cited 2-week period even for mild cases of COVID-19. The mean recovery time of the study participants was 4.5 weeks, and exactly one-half of participants (50%) still experienced lingering symptoms of COVID-19 after an average of 65 days following illness onset. Additionally, 37 (51%) participants reported that they experienced stigma associated with contracting COVID-19.

Conclusions

This study presents preliminary findings suggesting that emphasis on family or household spread of COVID-19 may be lacking and that there is a general underestimation of the recovery time even for mild cases of illness with the virus. Although a larger study is needed to validate these results, it is important to note that as more people experience COVID-19, insights from COVID-19 survivors can enable a more informed public, pave the way for others who may be affected by the virus, and guide further research.

SUBMITTER: Prioleau T

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8115396 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, studies reported delays in health care usage due to safety concerns. Delays in care may result in increased morbidity and mortality from otherwise treatable conditions. Telehealth provides a safe alternative for patients to receive care when other circumstances make in-person care unavailable or unsafe, but information on patient experiences is limited. Understanding which people are more or less likely to use telehealth and their experiences can help tailor outreach efforts to maximize the impact of telehealth.ObjectiveThis study aims to examine the characteristics of telehealth users and nonusers and their reported experiences among veteran and nonveteran respondents.MethodsA nationwide web-based survey of current behaviors and health care experiences was conducted in December 2020-March 2021. The survey consisted of 3 waves, and the first wave is assessed here. Respondents included US adults participating in Qualtrics web-based panels. Primary outcomes were self-reported telehealth use and number of telehealth visits. The analysis used a 2-part regression model examining the association between telehealth use and the number of visits with respondent characteristics.ResultsThere were 2085 participants in the first wave, and 898 (43.1%) reported using telehealth since the pandemic began. Most veterans who used telehealth reported much or somewhat preferring an in-person visit (336/474, 70.9%), while slightly less than half of nonveterans (189/424, 44.6%) reported this preference. While there was no significant difference between veteran and nonveteran likelihood of using telehealth (odds ratio [OR] 1.33, 95% CI 0.97-1.82), veterans were likely to have more visits when they did use it (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.07-2.07). Individuals were less likely to use telehealth and reported fewer visits if they were 55 years and older (OR 0.39, 95% CI 0.25-0.62 for ages 55-64 years; IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.28-0.66) or lived in a small city (OR 0.63, 95% CI 0.43-0.92; IRR 0.71, 95% CI 0.51-0.99). Receiving health care partly or primarily at the Veterans Health Administration (VA) was associated with telehealth use (primarily VA: OR 3.25, 95% CI 2.20-4.81; equal mix: OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.40-3.39) and more telehealth visits (primarily VA: IRR 1.5, 95% CI 1.10-2.04; equal mix: IRR 1.57, 95% CI 1.11-2.24).ConclusionsTelehealth will likely continue to be an important source of health care for patients, especially following situations like the COVID-19 pandemic. Some groups who may benefit from telehealth are still underserved. Telehealth services and outreach should be improved to provide accessible care for all.

Project description:BackgroundPatients' web-based access to their medical records is expected to promote their role and responsibility in managing their own health and treatments and supporting shared decision-making. As of July 2020, general practices in the Netherlands are legally obliged to provide their patients access to their electronic medical records. Web-based access provision is facilitated and stimulated through a national support program named OPEN.ObjectiveWe aimed to investigate general practice staff experiences with providing web-based access; investigate its impact on patient consultations, administrative actions, and patient inquiries; and investigate how it affects routine general practice workflow processes.MethodsIn October 2021, a total of 3813 general practices in the Netherlands were invited to complete a web-based survey that included questions regarding their experiences with the provision of web-based access to medical records and how it affects routine general practice workflow. Responses of general practices that started providing web-based access before 2020, in 2020, or in 2021 were analyzed to identify trends.ResultsOf 3813 invited general practices, 523 (13.72%) completed the survey. Approximately all responding general practices (487/523, 93.1%) indicated that they provide web-based access. Experiences with patients' web-based access were diverse, with 36.9% (178/482) primarily positive, 8.1% (39/482) primarily negative, 42.3% (204/482) neutral, and 12.7% (61/482) could not (yet) indicate how they experienced web-based access. Of the total, two-thirds (311/473, 65.8%) reported an increase in e-consultations and a similar percentage (302/474, 63.7%) indicated an increase in administrative actions associated with web-based access provision. A small proportion of the practices (≤10%) experienced a decrease in patient contacts. Earlier adoption of web-based access was associated with a more positive attitude toward web-based access and more positive experienced effects related to patient contacts and general practice workflow.ConclusionsThe surveyed general practices mainly experienced providing web-based access as either neutral or mostly positive, despite an increased number of patient contacts and administrative burden that were associated with its adoption. Periodic monitoring of experiences is needed to understand the temporal or structural nature of both the intended and unintended effects of patients' web-based access to medical records for general practices and their staff.

Project description:Rationale & objectiveThe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic imposed several changes in the care of patients with kidney failure receiving dialysis. We explored patient care experiences during the pandemic.Study designThe study team verbally administered surveys including Likert scale multiple-choice questions and open-ended questions and recorded responses.Setting & participantsSurveys were administered to adults receiving dialysis through an academic nephrology practice after the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.ExposureOutpatient dialysis treatment during the COVID-19 pandemic.OutcomesPerceptions of care and changes in health.Analytical approachMultiple-choice responses were quantified using descriptive statistics. Thematic analysis was used to code open-ended responses and derive themes surrounding patient experiences.ResultsA total of 172 patients receiving dialysis were surveyed. Most patients reported feeling "very connected" to the care teams. Seventeen percent of participants reported transportation issues, 6% reported difficulty obtaining medications, and 9% reported difficulty getting groceries. Four themes emerged as influencing patient experiences during the pandemic: 1) the COVID-19 pandemic did not significantly affect participants' experience of dialysis care; 2) the COVID-19 pandemic significantly impacted other aspects of participants' lives, which in turn were felt to affect mental and physical health; 3) regarding dialysis care experience more generally, participants valued consistency, dependability, and personal connection to staff; and 4) the COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of external social support.LimitationsSurveys were administered early in the COVID-19 pandemic, and patient perspectives have not been reassessed. Further qualitative analysis using semi-structured interviews was not performed. Survey distribution in additional practice settings, using validated questionnaires, would increase generalizability of the study. The study was not powered for statistical analysis.ConclusionsEarly in the COVID-19 pandemic, perceptions of dialysis care were unchanged for most patients. Other aspects of participants' lives were impacted, which affected their health. Subpopulations of patients receiving dialysis may be more vulnerable during the pandemic: those with histories of mental health conditions, non-White patients, and patients treated by in-center hemodialysis.Plain-language summaryPatients with kidney failure continue to receive life-sustaining dialysis treatments during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. We sought to understand perceived changes in care and mental health during this challenging time. We administered surveys to patients receiving dialysis after the initial wave of COVID-19, asking questions on topics including access to care, ability to reach care teams, and depression. Most participants did not feel that their dialysis care experiences had changed, but some reported difficulties in other aspects of living such as nutrition and social interactions. Participants highlighted the importance of consistent dialysis care teams and the availability of external support. We found that patients who are treated with in-center hemodialysis, are non-White, or have mental health conditions may have been more vulnerable during the pandemic.

Project description:BackgroundWeb-based symptom checkers are promising tools that provide help to patients seeking guidance on health problems. Many health organizations have started using them to enhance triage. Patients use the symptom checker to report their symptoms online and submit the report to the health care center through the system. Health care professionals (registered nurse, practical nurse, general physician, physiotherapist, etc) receive patient inquiries with urgency rating, decide on actions to be taken, and communicate these to the patients. The success of the adoption, however, depends on whether the tools can efficiently support health care professionals' workflow and achieve their support.ObjectiveThis study explores the factors influencing health care professionals' support for a web-based symptom checker for triage.MethodsData were collected through a web-based survey of 639 health care professionals using either of the two most used web-based symptom checkers in the Finnish public primary care. Linear regression models were fitted to study the associations between the study variables and health care professionals' support for the symptom checkers. In addition, the health care professionals' comments collected via survey were qualitatively analyzed to elicit additional insights about the benefits and challenges of the clinical use of symptom checkers.ResultsResults show that the perceived beneficial influence of the symptom checkers on health care professionals' work and the perceived usability of the tools were positively associated with professionals' support. The perceived benefits to patients and organizational support for use were positively associated, and threat to professionals' autonomy was negatively associated with health care professionals' support. These associations were, however, not independent of other factors included in the models. The influences on professionals' work were both positive and negative; the tools streamlined work by providing preliminary information on patients and reduced the number of phone calls, but they also created extra work as the professionals needed to call patients and ask clarifying questions. Managing time between the use of symptom checkers and other tasks was also challenging. Meanwhile, according to health care professionals' experience, the symptom checkers benefited patients as they received help quickly with a lower threshold for care.ConclusionsThe efficient use of symptom checkers for triage requires usable solutions that support health care professionals' work. High-quality information about the patients' conditions and an efficient way of communicating with patients are needed. Using a new eHealth tool also requires that health organizations and teams reorganize their workflows and work distributions to support clinical processes.

Project description:BackgroundDegenerative cervical myelopathy (DCM), a progressive spinal cord injury caused by spinal cord compression from degenerative pathology, often presents with neck pain, sensorimotor dysfunction in the upper or lower limbs, gait disturbance, and bladder or bowel dysfunction. Its symptomatology is very heterogeneous, making early detection as well as the measurement or understanding of the underlying factors and their consequences challenging. Increasingly, evidence suggests that DCM may consist of subgroups of the disease, which are yet to be defined.ObjectiveThis study aimed to explore whether machine learning can identify clinically meaningful groups of patients based solely on clinical features.MethodsA survey was conducted wherein participants were asked to specify the clinical features they had experienced, their principal presenting complaint, and time to diagnosis as well as demographic information, including disease severity, age, and sex. K-means clustering was used to divide respondents into clusters according to their clinical features using the Euclidean distance measure and the Hartigan-Wong algorithm. The clinical significance of groups was subsequently explored by comparing their time to presentation, time with disease severity, and other demographics.ResultsAfter a review of both ancillary and cluster data, it was determined by consensus that the optimal number of DCM response groups was 3. In Cluster 1, there were 40 respondents, and the ratio of male to female participants was 13:21. In Cluster 2, there were 92 respondents, with a male to female participant ratio of 27:65. Cluster 3 had 57 respondents, with a male to female participant ratio of 9:48. A total of 6 people did not report biological sex in Cluster 1. The mean age in this Cluster was 56.2 (SD 10.5) years; in Cluster 2, it was 54.7 (SD 9.63) years; and in Cluster 3, it was 51.8 (SD 8.4) years. Patients across clusters significantly differed in the total number of clinical features reported, with more clinical features in Cluster 3 and the least clinical features in Cluster 1 (Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test: χ22=159.46; P<.001). There was no relationship between the pattern of clinical features and severity. There were also no differences between clusters regarding time since diagnosis and time with DCM.ConclusionsUsing machine learning and patient-reported experience, 3 groups of patients with DCM were defined, which were different in the number of clinical features but not in the severity of DCM or time with DCM. Although a clearer biological basis for the clusters may have been missed, the findings are consistent with the emerging observation that DCM is a heterogeneous disease, difficult to diagnose or stratify. There is a place for machine learning methods to efficiently assist with pattern recognition. However, the challenge lies in creating quality data sets necessary to derive benefit from such approaches.

Project description:BackgroundThe first nationwide lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic was implemented in Vietnam from April 1 to 15, 2020. Nevertheless, there has been limited information on the impact of COVID-19 on the psychological health of the public.ObjectiveThis study aimed to estimate the prevalence of psychological issues and identify the factors associated with the psychological impact of COVID-19 during the first nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam.MethodsWe employed a cross-sectional study design with convenience sampling. A self-administered, online survey was used to collect data and assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants from April 10 to 15, 2020. The Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R) and the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale-21 (DASS-21) were utilized to assess psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and stress of participants during social distancing due to COVID-19. Associations across factors were explored using regression analysis.ResultsA total of 1385 respondents completed the survey. Of this, 35.9% (n=497) experienced psychological distress, as well as depression (n=325, 23.5%), anxiety (n=195, 14.1%), and stress (n=309, 22.3%). Respondents who evaluated their physical health as average had a higher IES-R score (beta coefficient [B]=9.16, 95% CI 6.43 to 11.89), as well as higher depression (B=5.85, 95% CI 4.49 to 7.21), anxiety (B=3.64, 95% CI 2.64 to 4.63), and stress (B=5.19, 95% CI 3.83 to 6.56) scores for DASS-21 than those who rated their health as good or very good. Those who self-reported their health as bad or very bad experienced more severe depression (B=9.57, 95% CI 4.54 to 14.59), anxiety (B=7.24, 95% CI 3.55 to 10.9), and stress (B=10.60, 95% CI 5.56 to 15.65). Unemployment was more likely to be associated with depression (B=3.34, 95% CI 1.68 to 5.01) and stress (B=2.34, 95% CI 0.84 to 3.85). Regarding worries about COVID-19, more than half (n=755, 54.5%) expressed concern for their children aged <18 years, which increased their IES-R score (B=7.81, 95% CI 4.98 to 10.64) and DASS-21 stress score (B=1.75, 95% CI 0.27 to 3.24). The majority of respondents (n=1335, 96.4%) were confident about their doctor's expertise in terms of COVID-19 diagnosis and treatment, which was positively associated with less distress caused by the outbreak (B=-7.84, 95% CI -14.58 to -1.11).ConclusionsThe findings highlight the effect of COVID-19 on mental health during the nationwide lockdown among the general population in Vietnam. The study provides useful evidence for policy decision makers to develop and implement interventions to mitigate these impacts.