Dataset Information

The impact of the UK COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported health outcomes after stroke: a retrospective sequential comparison

ABSTRACT:

Background and purpose

The COVID-19 pandemic and related social isolation measures are likely to have adverse consequences on community healthcare provision and outcome after acute illnesses treated in hospital, including stroke. We aimed to evaluate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patient-reported health outcomes after hospital admission for acute stroke.

Methods

This retrospective study included adults with acute stroke admitted to the University College Hospital NHS Foundation Trust Hyperacute Stroke Unit. We included two separate cohorts of consecutively enrolled patients from the same geographical population at two time points: 16th March–16th May 2018 (pre-COVID-19 pandemic); and 16th March–16th May 2020 (during the COVID-19 pandemic). Patients in both cohorts completed the validated Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System–29 (PROMIS-29 version 2.0) at 30 days after stroke.

Results

We included 205 patients who were alive at 30 days (106 admitted before and 99 admitted during the COVID-19 pandemic), of whom 201/205 (98%) provided patient-reported health outcomes. After adjustment for confounding factors, admission with acute stroke during the COVID-19 pandemic was independently associated with increased anxiety (β = 28.0, p < 0.001), fatigue (β = 9.3, p < 0.001), depression (β = 4.5, p = 0.002), sleep disturbance (β = 2.3, p = 0.018), pain interference (β = 10.8, p < 0.001); and reduced physical function (β = 5.2, p < 0.001) and participation in social roles and activities (β = 6.9, p < 0.001).

Conclusion

Compared with the pre-pandemic cohort, patients admitted with acute stroke during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic reported poorer health outcomes at 30 day follow-up in all domains. Stroke service planning for any future pandemic should include measures to mitigate this major adverse impact on patient health.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00415-021-10819-9.

SUBMITTER: Ozkan H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8517937 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundDespite treatment advances for inflammatory arthritis, a significant amount of patients fail to achieve remission. Other modifiable factors such as diet, physical activity and environmental exposures may be an important area of focus to help patients achieve disease remission and greater overall health. Functional medicine focuses on these lifestyle factors and may be an important adjunctive therapy. In this study, we examined the impact of functional medicine on patient-reported outcomes in patients with inflammatory arthritis.Materials and methodsIn this 12-week, retrospective study, patients with confirmed diagnoses of rheumatoid arthritis (RA) or psoriatic arthritis (PsA) were treated according to guidelines from the American College of Rheumatology for RA or PSA respectively. Those in the functional medicine group underwent a functional medicine program adjunctive to the standard of care. Patient reported outcomes, such as PROMIS (Patient Reported Outcomes Measurement Information System) global physical health, mental health and pain scores were collected at baseline and 12 weeks. Multivariable statistical modeling was used to identify the impact of functional medicine on patient-reported outcomes.Results318 patients were screened and 54 patients (mean age 52.9±11.3 years, females 74(67.9%)), were included. Baseline characteristics were similar in both patient groups with the exception of PROMIS global physical health and pain (PROMIS global physical health score 43·2 ± 6·6 and 39·7 ± 8·7 and pain scores of 3·5 ± 1·9 and 5·2 ± 2·7 in the functional medicine group vs. standard of care group respectively). Using multivariable model to account for these differences, patients in the functional medicine group had a statistically significant reduction in pain (0.92, p-value = 0.007) and change in PROMIS physical health score (2·84, p-value = 0.001) as compared to the standard of care. Changes in PROMIS global mental health scores were also significant and were dependent on age and were greatest in those older than 55.LimitationsRetrospective design, baseline difference in patient reported outcomes.ConclusionsFunctional medicine may have an important role as adjunctive therapy to improve patients' pain, physical and mental health in those who do not see improvement with conventional therapy alone.

Project description:We conducted a retrospective comparative-effectiveness study of best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA) and refractive error (RE) after immediate sequential (ISBCS) and delayed sequential (DSBCS) bilateral cataract surgery. We tested 2 hypotheses: (1) among DSBCS patients, second-eye outcomes were no different than first-eye outcomes; (2) averaged between each patient's 2 eyes, outcomes did not differ between ISBCS and DSBCS patients.Retrospective comparative-effectiveness study.Kaiser Permanente Northern California members who underwent noncomplex bilateral cataract surgery from January 1, 2013, through June 30, 2015.We performed an intention-to-treat analysis comparing ISBCS to DSBCS using conditional logistic regression analysis, accounting for surgeon and patient-level factors.BCVA, RE.The analysis of visual outcomes included both eyes of 13?711 DSBCS and 3561 ISBCS patients. Because of the large sample size, some statistical differences lacked clinical significance. Ocular comorbidities were slightly more prevalent in DSBCS patients. Postoperative BCVA was 20/20 or better in 48% of DSBCS first eyes, 49% of DSBCS second eyes, 53% of ISBCS right eyes, and 51% of ISBCS left eyes. The within-person difference in postoperative BCVA averaged zero (0.00) between the first and second DSBCS eyes, and between the ISBCS right and left eyes. After adjustment, average postoperative BCVA was better in ISBCS patients, although the difference was not statistically significant (compared with 20/20 or better: odds ratio for worse than 20/20 was 0.91, 95% confidence interval 0.83-1.01). Emmetropia (spherical equivalent -0.5 to 0 diopter) was achieved in 61% of first DSBCS eyes, 61% of second DSBCS eyes, 63% of ISBCS right eyes, and 63% of ISBCS left eyes. After adjustment, average postoperative RE was no different in ISBCS compared with DSBCS patients (compared with emmetropia: odds ratio for ametropia was 1.02, confidence interval 0.92-1.12). We confirmed 1 case of postoperative endophthalmitis in 10?494 ISBCS eyes (1.0 per 10?000 eyes) and 2 cases in 38?736 DSBCS eyes (0.5 per 10?000 eyes) (P = 0.6), and no patient had bilateral endophthalmitis.Compared with DSBCS, we found no evidence that ISBCS was associated with worse postoperative BCVA or RE, or with an increased complication risk.

Project description:Abstract Background The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (officially declared on the March 11, 2020), and the resulting measures, are impacting daily life and medical management of breast cancer patients and survivors. We evaluated to what extent these changes have affected quality of life, physical, and psychosocial well-being of patients previously or currently being treated for breast cancer. Methods This study was conducted within a prospective, multicenter cohort of breast cancer patients and survivors (Utrecht cohort for Multiple BREast cancer intervention studies and Long-term evaLuAtion). Shortly after the implementation of COVID-19 measures, an extra survey was sent to 1595 participants, including the validated European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) core (C30) and breast cancer- specific (BR23) Quality of Life Questionnaire (EORTC QLQ-C30/BR23) and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) questionnaire. Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) were compared with the most recent PROs collected within UMBRELLA pre–COVID-19. The impact of COVID-19 on PROs was assessed using mixed model analysis, adjusting for potential confounders. Results 1051 patients and survivors (65.9%) completed the survey; 31.1% (n?=?327) reported a higher threshold to contact their general practitioner amid the COVID-19 pandemic. A statistically significant deterioration in emotional functioning was observed (mean = 82.6 [SD = 18.7] to 77.9 [SD = 17.3]; P?<?.001), and 505 (48.0%, 95% confidence interval [CI]?=?45.0% to 51.1%) patients and survivors reported moderate to severe loneliness. Small improvements were observed in quality of life and physical, social, and role functioning. In the subgroup of 51 patients under active treatment, social functioning strongly deteriorated (77.3 [95% CI?=?69.4 to 85.2] to 61.3 [95% CI?=?52.6 to 70.1]; P?=?.002). Conclusion During the COVID-19 pandemic, breast cancer patients and survivors were less likely to contact physicians and experienced a deterioration in their emotional functioning. Patients undergoing active treatment reported a substantial drop in social functioning. One in 2 reported loneliness that was moderate or severe. Online interventions supporting mental health and social interaction are needed during times of social distancing and lockdowns.

Project description:ObjectiveWe performed a systematic review of the accuracy of patient self-report of stroke to inform approaches to ascertaining and confirming stroke cases in large prospective studies.MethodsWe sought studies comparing patient self-report against a reference standard for stroke. We extracted data on survey method(s), response rates, participant characteristics, the reference standard used, and the positive predictive value (PPV) of self-report. Where possible we also calculated sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive value (NPV), and stroke prevalence. Study-level risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Studies tool (QUADAS-2).ResultsFrom >1500 identified articles, we included 17 studies. Most asked patients to report a lifetime history of stroke but a few limited recall time to ≤5 years. Some included questions for transient ischaemic attack (TIA) or stroke synonyms. No study was free of risk of bias in the QUADAS-2 assessment, the most frequent causes of bias being incomplete reference standard data, absence of blinding of adjudicators to self-report status, and participant response rates (<80%). PPV of self-report ranged from 22-87% (17 studies), sensitivity from 36-98% (10 studies), specificity from 96-99.6% (10 studies), and NPV from 88.2-99.9% (10 studies). PPV increased with stroke prevalence as expected. Among six studies with available relevant data, if confirmed TIAs were considered to be true rather than false positive strokes, PPV of self-report was >75% in all but one study. It was not possible to assess the influence of recall time or of the question(s) asked on PPV or sensitivity.ConclusionsCharacteristics of the study population strongly influence self-report accuracy. In population-based studies with low stroke prevalence, a large proportion of self-reported strokes may be false positives. Self-report is therefore unlikely to be helpful for identifying cases without subsequent confirmation, but may be useful for case ascertainment in combination with other data sources.