37
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
2 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Acute COVID-19 severity and mental health morbidity trajectories in patient populations of six nations: an observational study

      research-article
      , MSc a , * , , PhD b , * , , MPH a , * , , PhD c , * , , PhD d , * , , PhD e , * , , PhD f , * , , PhD h , i , * , , Prof, PhD a , , PhD c , k , , PhD f , , MSc b , , PhD d , g , , Cand.Psych h , i , , Prof, PhD h , i , , , Prof, PhD c , , , Prof, PhD b , , , PhD a , , , PhD e , , , Prof, PhD g , j , , , PhD l , , , Prof, PhD a , m , , , Prof, PhD a , b , n , , * , COVIDMENT Collaboration
      The Lancet. Public Health
      The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Long-term mental and physical health consequences of COVID-19 (long COVID) are a persistent public health concern. Little is still known about the long-term mental health of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 with varying illness severities. Our aim was to assess the prevalence of adverse mental health symptoms among individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 in the general population by acute infection severity up to 16 months after diagnosis.

          Methods

          This observational follow-up study included seven prospectively planned cohorts across six countries (Denmark, Estonia, Iceland, Norway, Sweden, and the UK). Participants were recruited from March 27, 2020, to Aug 13, 2021. Individuals aged 18 years or older were eligible to participate. In a cross-sectional analysis, we contrasted symptom prevalence of depression, anxiety, COVID-19-related distress, and poor sleep quality (screened with validated mental health instruments) among individuals with and without a diagnosis of COVID-19 at entry, 0–16 months from diagnosis. In a cohort analysis, we further used repeated measures to estimate the change in mental health symptoms before and after COVID-19 diagnosis.

          Findings

          The analytical cohort consisted of 247 249 individuals, 9979 (4·0%) of whom were diagnosed with COVID-19 during the study period. Mean follow-up was 5·65 months (SD 4·26). Participants diagnosed with COVID-19 presented overall with a higher prevalence of symptoms of depression (prevalence ratio [PR] 1·18 [95% CI 1·03–1·36]) and poorer sleep quality (1·13 [1·03–1·24]) but not symptoms of anxiety (0·97 [0·91–1·03]) or COVID-19-related distress (1·05 [0·93–1·20]) compared with individuals without a COVID-19 diagnosis. Although the prevalence of depression and COVID-19-related distress attenuated with time, individuals diagnosed with COVID-19 but never bedridden due to their illness were consistently at lower risk of depression (PR 0·83 [95% CI 0·75–0·91]) and anxiety (0·77 [0·63–0·94]) than those not diagnosed with COVID-19, whereas patients who were bedridden for more than 7 days were persistently at higher risk of symptoms of depression (PR 1·61 [95% CI 1·27–2·05]) and anxiety (1·43 [1·26–1·63]) than those not diagnosed throughout the study period.

          Interpretation

          Severe acute COVID-19 illness—indicated by extended time bedridden—is associated with long-term mental morbidity among recovering individuals in the general population. These findings call for increased vigilance of adverse mental health development among patients with a severe acute disease phase of COVID-19.

          Funding

          Nordforsk, Horizon2020, Wellcome Trust, and Estonian Research Council.

          Related collections

          Most cited references42

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: not found
          • Article: not found

          Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses.

            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A brief measure for assessing generalized anxiety disorder: the GAD-7.

            Generalized anxiety disorder (GAD) is one of the most common mental disorders; however, there is no brief clinical measure for assessing GAD. The objective of this study was to develop a brief self-report scale to identify probable cases of GAD and evaluate its reliability and validity. A criterion-standard study was performed in 15 primary care clinics in the United States from November 2004 through June 2005. Of a total of 2740 adult patients completing a study questionnaire, 965 patients had a telephone interview with a mental health professional within 1 week. For criterion and construct validity, GAD self-report scale diagnoses were compared with independent diagnoses made by mental health professionals; functional status measures; disability days; and health care use. A 7-item anxiety scale (GAD-7) had good reliability, as well as criterion, construct, factorial, and procedural validity. A cut point was identified that optimized sensitivity (89%) and specificity (82%). Increasing scores on the scale were strongly associated with multiple domains of functional impairment (all 6 Medical Outcomes Study Short-Form General Health Survey scales and disability days). Although GAD and depression symptoms frequently co-occurred, factor analysis confirmed them as distinct dimensions. Moreover, GAD and depression symptoms had differing but independent effects on functional impairment and disability. There was good agreement between self-report and interviewer-administered versions of the scale. The GAD-7 is a valid and efficient tool for screening for GAD and assessing its severity in clinical practice and research.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure.

              While considerable attention has focused on improving the detection of depression, assessment of severity is also important in guiding treatment decisions. Therefore, we examined the validity of a brief, new measure of depression severity. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ) is a self-administered version of the PRIME-MD diagnostic instrument for common mental disorders. The PHQ-9 is the depression module, which scores each of the 9 DSM-IV criteria as "0" (not at all) to "3" (nearly every day). The PHQ-9 was completed by 6,000 patients in 8 primary care clinics and 7 obstetrics-gynecology clinics. Construct validity was assessed using the 20-item Short-Form General Health Survey, self-reported sick days and clinic visits, and symptom-related difficulty. Criterion validity was assessed against an independent structured mental health professional (MHP) interview in a sample of 580 patients. As PHQ-9 depression severity increased, there was a substantial decrease in functional status on all 6 SF-20 subscales. Also, symptom-related difficulty, sick days, and health care utilization increased. Using the MHP reinterview as the criterion standard, a PHQ-9 score > or =10 had a sensitivity of 88% and a specificity of 88% for major depression. PHQ-9 scores of 5, 10, 15, and 20 represented mild, moderate, moderately severe, and severe depression, respectively. Results were similar in the primary care and obstetrics-gynecology samples. In addition to making criteria-based diagnoses of depressive disorders, the PHQ-9 is also a reliable and valid measure of depression severity. These characteristics plus its brevity make the PHQ-9 a useful clinical and research tool.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Lancet Public Health
                Lancet Public Health
                The Lancet. Public Health
                The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd.
                2468-2667
                14 March 2022
                14 March 2022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Centre of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Iceland, Reykjavik, Iceland
                [b ]Unit of Integrative Epidemiology, Institute of Environmental Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden
                [c ]Centre for Genomic and Experimental Medicine, Institute of Genetics and Cancer, University of Edinburgh, Western General Hospital, Edinburgh, UK
                [d ]Department of Mental Disorders, Norwegian Institute of Public Health, Oslo, Norway
                [e ]Estonian Genome Centre, Institute of Genomics, University of Tartu, Estonia
                [f ]Institute of Biological Psychiatry, Mental Health Services Copenhagen, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
                [g ]NORMENT Centre, Institute of Clinical Medicine, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                [h ]Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
                [i ]Modum Bad Psychiatric Center, Vikersund, Norway
                [j ]NORMENT Centre, Division of Mental Health and Addiction, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway
                [k ]Department of Psychology, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, UK
                [l ]Department of Clinical Immunology, Zealand University Hospital, Koege, Denmark
                [m ]The Icelandic Heart Association, Kopavogur, Iceland
                [n ]Department of Epidemiology, Harvard T H Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA
                Author notes
                [* ]Correspondence to: Prof Unnur Anna Valdimarsdóttir, Centre of Public Health Sciences, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland, 102 Reykjavik, Iceland
                [*]

                Equal contribution

                [†]

                Equal contribution

                [‡]

                Members are listed at the end of the paper

                Article
                S2468-2667(22)00042-1
                10.1016/S2468-2667(22)00042-1
                8920517
                35298894
                c7af23c5-8db2-47f1-82f8-c69aae962223
                © 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY-NC-ND 4.0 license

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Categories
                Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article