Long COVID Through a Public Health Lens: An Umbrella Review.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Nittas V
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8963488 | biostudies-literature | 2022
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Long COVID Through a Public Health Lens: An Umbrella Review.
Nittas Vasileios V Gao Manqi M West Erin A EA Ballouz Tala T Menges Dominik D Wulf Hanson Sarah S Puhan Milo Alan MA
Public health reviews 20220315
<b>Objectives:</b> To synthesize existing evidence on prevalence as well as clinical and socio-economic aspects of Long COVID. <b>Methods:</b> An umbrella review of reviews and a targeted evidence synthesis of their primary studies, including searches in four electronic databases, reference lists of included reviews, as well as related article lists of relevant publications. <b>Results:</b> Synthesis included 23 reviews and 102 primary studies. Prevalence estimates ranged from 7.5% to 41% in non ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:BackgroundA growing interest in long-term sequelae of COVID-19 has prompted several systematic literature reviews (SLRs) to evaluate long-COVID-19 effects. However, many of these reviews lack in-depth information on the timing, duration, and severity of these conditions.ObjectivesOur aim was to synthesize both qualitative and quantitative evidence on prevalence and outcomes of long-term effect of COVID-19 through an umbrella review.DesignUmbrella review of relevant SLRs on long-COVID-19 in terms of prolonged symptoms and clinical conditions, and comprehensively synthesized the latest existing evidence.Data sources and methodsWe systematically identified and appraised prior systematic reviews/meta-analyses using MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane database of systematic review from 2020 to 2021 following the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses guidance. We summarized and categorized all relevant clinical symptoms and outcomes in adults with COVID-19 using the Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities System Organ Class (MedDRA SOC).ResultsWe identified 967 systematic reviews/meta-analyses; 36 were retained for final data extraction. The most prevalent SOC were social circumstances (40%), blood and lymphatic system disorders (39%), and metabolism and nutrition disorder (38%). The most frequently reported SOC outcomes within each MedDRA category were poor quality of life (59%), wheezing and dyspnea (19-49%), fatigue (30-64%), chest pain (16%), decreased or loss of appetite (14-17%), abdominal discomfort or digestive disorder (12-18%), arthralgia with or without myalgia (16-24%), paresthesia (27%) and hair loss (14-25%), and hearing loss or tinnitus (15%).ConclusionThis study confirmed a high prevalence of several long COVID-19 outcomes according to the MedDRA categories and indicated that the majority of evidence was rated as moderate to low.RegistrationThe review was registered at PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/) (CRD42022303557).
| S-EPMC10501084 | biostudies-literature
Project description:An umbrella review of previously published systematic reviews was conducted to determine the nature and extent of the patient and public involvement (PPI) in COVID-19 health and social care research and identify how PPI has been used to develop public health measures (PHM). In recent years, there has been a growing emphasis on PPI in research as it offers alternative perspectives and insight into the needs of healthcare users to improve the quality and relevance of research. In January 2022, nine databases were searched from 2020-2022, and records were filtered to identify peer-reviewed articles published in English. From a total of 1437 unique records, 54 full-text articles were initially evaluated, and six articles met the inclusion criteria. The included studies suggest that PHM should be attuned to communities within a sociocultural context. Based on the evidence included, it is evident that PPI in COVID-19-related research is varied. The existing evidence includes written feedback, conversations with stakeholders, and working groups/task forces. An inconsistent evidence base exists in the application and use of PPI in PHM. Successful mitigation efforts must be community specific while making PPI an integral component of shared decision-making.
| S-EPMC10049580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Health, disease, and mortality vary greatly at the county level, and there are strong geographical trends of disease in the United States. Healthcare is and has been a top priority for voters in the U.S., and an important political issue. Consequently, it is important to determine what relationship voting patterns have with health, disease, and mortality, as doing so may help guide appropriate policy. We performed a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between voting patterns and over 150 different public health and wellbeing variables at the county level, comparing all states, including counties in 2016 battleground states, and counties in states that flipped from majority Democrat to majority Republican from 2012 to 2016. We also investigated county-level health trends over the last 30+ years and find statistically significant relationships between a number of health measures and the voting patterns of counties in presidential elections. Collectively, these data exhibit a strong pattern: counties that voted Republican in the 2016 election had overall worse health outcomes than those that voted Democrat. We hope that this strong relationship can guide improvements in healthcare policy legislation at the county level.
| S-EPMC8294501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many people who have survived COVID-19 have experienced negative persistent impacts on health. Impacts on health have included persistent respiratory symptoms, decreased quality of life, fatigue, impaired functional capacity, memory deficits, psychological impacts, and difficulties in returning to paid employment. Evidence is yet to be pooled to inform future directions in research and practice, to determine the physical, psychological, social, and spiritual impacts of the illness which extend beyond the acute phase of COVID-19 survivors. This umbrella review (review of systematic reviews) critically synthesized physical (including abnormal laboratory parameters), psychological, social, and spiritual impacts which extended beyond the acute phase of COVID-19 survivors. The search strategy was based on the sample, phenomena of interest, design, evaluation, research model and all publications were double screened independently by four review authors for the eligibility criteria. Data extraction and quality assessment were conducted in parallel independently. Eighteen systematic reviews were included, which represented a total of 493 publications. Sample sizes ranged from n = 15 to n = 44 799 with a total of n = 295 455 participants. There was incomplete reporting of several significant data points including the description of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 variant, COVID-19 treatments, and key clinical and demographic data. A number of physical, psychological, and social impacts were identified for individuals grappling with post-COVID condition. The long term sequalae of acute COVID-19 and size of the problem is only beginning to emerge. Further investigation is needed to ensure that those affected by post-COVID condition have their informational, spiritual, psychological, social, and physical needs met in the future.
| S-EPMC9539336 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundSocio-economic inequalities are associated with unequal exposure to social, economic and environmental risk factors, which in turn contribute to health inequalities. Understanding the impact of specific public health policy interventions will help to establish causality in terms of the effects on health inequalities.MethodsSystematic review methodology was used to identify systematic reviews from high-income countries that describe the health equity effects of upstream public health interventions. Twenty databases were searched from their start date until May 2017. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (AMSTAR).ResultsTwenty-nine systematic reviews were identified reporting 150 unique relevant primary studies. The reviews summarised evidence of all types of primary and secondary prevention policies (fiscal, regulation, education, preventative treatment and screening) across seven public health domains (tobacco, alcohol, food and nutrition, reproductive health services, the control of infectious diseases, the environment and workplace regulations). There were no systematic reviews of interventions targeting mental health. Results were mixed across the public health domains; some policy interventions were shown to reduce health inequalities (e.g. food subsidy programmes, immunisations), others have no effect and some interventions appear to increase inequalities (e.g. 20 mph and low emission zones). The quality of the included reviews (and their primary studies) were generally poor and clear gaps in the evidence base have been highlighted.ConclusionsThe review does tentatively suggest interventions that policy makers might use to reduce health inequalities, although whether the programmes are transferable between high-income countries remains unclear.Trial registrationPROSPERO registration number: CRD42016025283.
| S-EPMC6044092 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNaming a newly discovered disease is a difficult process; in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the existence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), which includes long COVID, it has proven especially challenging. Disease definitions and assignment of a diagnosis code are often asynchronous and iterative. The clinical definition and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of long COVID are still in flux, and the deployment of an ICD-10-CM code for long COVID in the USA took nearly 2 years after patients had begun to describe their condition. Here, we leverage the largest publicly available HIPAA-limited dataset about patients with COVID-19 in the US to examine the heterogeneity of adoption and use of U09.9, the ICD-10-CM code for "Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified."MethodsWe undertook a number of analyses to characterize the N3C population with a U09.9 diagnosis code (n = 33,782), including assessing person-level demographics and a number of area-level social determinants of health; diagnoses commonly co-occurring with U09.9, clustered using the Louvain algorithm; and quantifying medications and procedures recorded within 60 days of U09.9 diagnosis. We stratified all analyses by age group in order to discern differing patterns of care across the lifespan.ResultsWe established the diagnoses most commonly co-occurring with U09.9 and algorithmically clustered them into four major categories: cardiopulmonary, neurological, gastrointestinal, and comorbid conditions. Importantly, we discovered that the population of patients diagnosed with U09.9 is demographically skewed toward female, White, non-Hispanic individuals, as well as individuals living in areas with low poverty and low unemployment. Our results also include a characterization of common procedures and medications associated with U09.9-coded patients.ConclusionsThis work offers insight into potential subtypes and current practice patterns around long COVID and speaks to the existence of disparities in the diagnosis of patients with long COVID. This latter finding in particular requires further research and urgent remediation.
| S-EPMC9931566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundNaming a newly discovered disease is a difficult process; in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic and the existence of post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection (PASC), which includes Long COVID, it has proven especially challenging. Disease definitions and assignment of a diagnosis code are often asynchronous and iterative. The clinical definition and our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of Long COVID are still in flux, and the deployment of an ICD-10-CM code for Long COVID in the US took nearly two years after patients had begun to describe their condition. Here we leverage the largest publicly available HIPAA-limited dataset about patients with COVID-19 in the US to examine the heterogeneity of adoption and use of U09.9, the ICD-10-CM code for "Post COVID-19 condition, unspecified."MethodsWe undertook a number of analyses to characterize the N3C population with a U09.9 diagnosis code ( n = 21,072), including assessing person-level demographics and a number of area-level social determinants of health; diagnoses commonly co-occurring with U09.9, clustered using the Louvain algorithm; and quantifying medications and procedures recorded within 60 days of U09.9 diagnosis. We stratified all analyses by age group in order to discern differing patterns of care across the lifespan.ResultsWe established the diagnoses most commonly co-occurring with U09.9, and algorithmically clustered them into four major categories: cardiopulmonary, neurological, gastrointestinal, and comorbid conditions. Importantly, we discovered that the population of patients diagnosed with U09.9 is demographically skewed toward female, White, non-Hispanic individuals, as well as individuals living in areas with low poverty, high education, and high access to medical care. Our results also include a characterization of common procedures and medications associated with U09.9-coded patients.ConclusionsThis work offers insight into potential subtypes and current practice patterns around Long COVID, and speaks to the existence of disparities in the diagnosis of patients with Long COVID. This latter finding in particular requires further research and urgent remediation.
| S-EPMC9460974 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundLocally delivered, place-based public health interventions are receiving increasing attention as a way of improving health and reducing inequalities. However, there is limited evidence on their effectiveness. This umbrella review synthesises systematic review evidence of the health and health inequalities impacts of locally delivered place-based interventions across three elements of place and health: the physical, social, and economic environments.MethodsSystematic review methodology was used to identify recent published systematic reviews of the effectiveness of place-based interventions on health and health inequalities (PROGRESS+) in high-income countries. Nine databases were searched from 1st January 2008 to 1st March 2020. The quality of the included articles was determined using the Revised Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews tool (R-AMSTAR).ResultsThirteen systematic reviews were identified - reporting 51 unique primary studies. Fifty of these studies reported on interventions that changed the physical environment and one reported on changes to the economic environment. Only one primary study reported cost-effectiveness data. No reviews were identified that assessed the impact of social interventions. Given heterogeneity and quality issues, we found tentative evidence that the provision of housing/home modifications, improving the public realm, parks and playgrounds, supermarkets, transport, cycle lanes, walking routes, and outdoor gyms - can all have positive impacts on health outcomes - particularly physical activity. However, as no studies reported an assessment of variation in PROGRESS+ factors, the effect of these interventions on health inequalities remains unclear.ConclusionsPlace-based interventions can be effective at improving physical health, health behaviours and social determinants of health outcomes. High agentic interventions indicate greater improvements for those living in greater proximity to the intervention, which may suggest that in order for interventions to reduce inequalities, they should be implemented at a scale commensurate with the level of disadvantage. Future research needs to ensure equity data is collected, as this is severely lacking and impeding progress on identifying interventions that are effective in reducing health inequalities.Trial registrationPROSPERO CRD42019158309.
| S-EPMC8524206 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC10801288 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Mitigating the COVID-19 related disruptions in mental health care services is crucial in a time of increased mental health disorders. Numerous reviews have been conducted on the process of implementing technology-based mental health care during the pandemic. The research question of this umbrella review was to examine what the impact of COVID-19 was on access and delivery of mental health services and how mental health services have changed during the pandemic. A systematic search for systematic reviews and meta-analyses was conducted up to August 12, 2022, and 38 systematic reviews were identified. Main disruptions during COVID-19 were reduced access to outpatient mental health care and reduced admissions and earlier discharge from inpatient care. In response, synchronous telemental health tools such as videoconferencing were used to provide remote care similar to pre-COVID care, and to a lesser extent asynchronous virtual mental health tools such as apps. Implementation of synchronous tools were facilitated by time-efficiency and flexibility during the pandemic but there was a lack of accessibility for specific vulnerable populations. Main barriers among practitioners and patients to use digital mental health tools were poor technological literacy, particularly when preexisting inequalities existed, and beliefs about reduced therapeutic alliance particularly in case of severe mental disorders. Absence of organizational support for technological implementation of digital mental health interventions due to inadequate IT infrastructure, lack of funding, as well as lack of privacy and safety, challenged implementation during COVID-19. Reviews were of low to moderate quality, covered heterogeneously designed primary studies and lacked findings of implementation in low- and middle-income countries. These gaps in the evidence were particularly prevalent in studies conducted early in the pandemic. This umbrella review shows that during the COVID-19 pandemic, practitioners and mental health care institutions mainly used synchronous telemental health tools, and to a lesser degree asynchronous tools to enable continued access to mental health care for patients. Numerous barriers to these tools were identified, and call for further improvements. In addition, more high quality research into comparative effectiveness and working mechanisms may improve scalability of mental health care in general and in future infectious disease outbreaks.
| S-EPMC9661449 | biostudies-literature