1.
6-month neurological and psychiatric outcomes in 236 379 survivors of COVID-19: a retrospective cohort study using electronic health records.
Taquet, M, Geddes, JR, Husain, M, Luciano, S, Harrison, PJ
The lancet. Psychiatry. 2021;8(5):416-427
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Recent literature shows that COVID-19 survivors might be at an increased risk of neurological and psychiatric disorders. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses in survivors in the 6 months after documented clinical COVID-19 infection. This study is a retrospective cohort study with the primary cohort comprised of 236,379 patients diagnosed with COVID-19 and two propensity-score-matched control cohorts. The primary cohort was divided into one of the four subgroups. Results indicate that the severity of COVID-19 had a clear effect on subsequent neurological diagnoses. In fact, COVID-19 was associated with an increased risk of neurological and psychiatric outcomes. However, the incidences and hazard ratio of these were greater in patients who had required hospitalisation, and particularly those who required ITU admission or developed encephalopathy, even after extensive propensity score matching for other factors. Authors conclude that COVID-19 is followed by significant rates of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses over the subsequent 6 months.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Neurological and psychiatric sequelae of COVID-19 have been reported, but more data are needed to adequately assess the effects of COVID-19 on brain health. We aimed to provide robust estimates of incidence rates and relative risks of neurological and psychiatric diagnoses in patients in the 6 months following a COVID-19 diagnosis. METHODS For this retrospective cohort study and time-to-event analysis, we used data obtained from the TriNetX electronic health records network (with over 81 million patients). Our primary cohort comprised patients who had a COVID-19 diagnosis; one matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with influenza, and the other matched control cohort included patients diagnosed with any respiratory tract infection including influenza in the same period. Patients with a diagnosis of COVID-19 or a positive test for SARS-CoV-2 were excluded from the control cohorts. All cohorts included patients older than 10 years who had an index event on or after Jan 20, 2020, and who were still alive on Dec 13, 2020. We estimated the incidence of 14 neurological and psychiatric outcomes in the 6 months after a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19: intracranial haemorrhage; ischaemic stroke; parkinsonism; Guillain-Barré syndrome; nerve, nerve root, and plexus disorders; myoneural junction and muscle disease; encephalitis; dementia; psychotic, mood, and anxiety disorders (grouped and separately); substance use disorder; and insomnia. Using a Cox model, we compared incidences with those in propensity score-matched cohorts of patients with influenza or other respiratory tract infections. We investigated how these estimates were affected by COVID-19 severity, as proxied by hospitalisation, intensive therapy unit (ITU) admission, and encephalopathy (delirium and related disorders). We assessed the robustness of the differences in outcomes between cohorts by repeating the analysis in different scenarios. To provide benchmarking for the incidence and risk of neurological and psychiatric sequelae, we compared our primary cohort with four cohorts of patients diagnosed in the same period with additional index events: skin infection, urolithiasis, fracture of a large bone, and pulmonary embolism. FINDINGS Among 236 379 patients diagnosed with COVID-19, the estimated incidence of a neurological or psychiatric diagnosis in the following 6 months was 33·62% (95% CI 33·17-34·07), with 12·84% (12·36-13·33) receiving their first such diagnosis. For patients who had been admitted to an ITU, the estimated incidence of a diagnosis was 46·42% (44·78-48·09) and for a first diagnosis was 25·79% (23·50-28·25). Regarding individual diagnoses of the study outcomes, the whole COVID-19 cohort had estimated incidences of 0·56% (0·50-0·63) for intracranial haemorrhage, 2·10% (1·97-2·23) for ischaemic stroke, 0·11% (0·08-0·14) for parkinsonism, 0·67% (0·59-0·75) for dementia, 17·39% (17·04-17·74) for anxiety disorder, and 1·40% (1·30-1·51) for psychotic disorder, among others. In the group with ITU admission, estimated incidences were 2·66% (2·24-3·16) for intracranial haemorrhage, 6·92% (6·17-7·76) for ischaemic stroke, 0·26% (0·15-0·45) for parkinsonism, 1·74% (1·31-2·30) for dementia, 19·15% (17·90-20·48) for anxiety disorder, and 2·77% (2·31-3·33) for psychotic disorder. Most diagnostic categories were more common in patients who had COVID-19 than in those who had influenza (hazard ratio [HR] 1·44, 95% CI 1·40-1·47, for any diagnosis; 1·78, 1·68-1·89, for any first diagnosis) and those who had other respiratory tract infections (1·16, 1·14-1·17, for any diagnosis; 1·32, 1·27-1·36, for any first diagnosis). As with incidences, HRs were higher in patients who had more severe COVID-19 (eg, those admitted to ITU compared with those who were not: 1·58, 1·50-1·67, for any diagnosis; 2·87, 2·45-3·35, for any first diagnosis). Results were robust to various sensitivity analyses and benchmarking against the four additional index health events. INTERPRETATION Our study provides evidence for substantial neurological and psychiatric morbidity in the 6 months after COVID-19 infection. Risks were greatest in, but not limited to, patients who had severe COVID-19. This information could help in service planning and identification of research priorities. Complementary study designs, including prospective cohorts, are needed to corroborate and explain these findings. FUNDING National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Health Biomedical Research Centre.
2.
Association between eating behaviour and diet quality: eating alone vs. eating with others.
Chae, W, Ju, YJ, Shin, J, Jang, SI, Park, EC
Nutrition journal. 2018;17(1):117
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Selecting foods for a day is easily influenced by the social environment and eating together or alone plays a big role in that decision. The study aims to evaluate the association between diet quality of the modern Korean adult population based on the eating behaviour and the socioeconomic factors that influence their diet quality. The study is a cross-sectional study which included 3365 men and 5258 women aged between 19 and 64 years. The study included demographic, socioeconomics, and health behaviour factors as covariates. Results indicate that diet quality is influence by eating behaviour. Authors observed that when Korean adults ate without a companion, their diet quality was significantly lower than those who consistently ate with others. Furthermore, from the higher education to lower education level, the diet quality declined when they eat alone. Authors conclude that many Korean adults are experiencing low diet quality when they eat alone. The study provides evidence to promote interventions to improve diet quality among the public.
Abstract
BACKGROUND To discover the association between eating alone and diet quality among Korean adults who eat alone measured by the mean adequacy ratio (MAR), METHODS The cross-sectional study in diet quality which was measured by nutrient intakes, indicated as MAR and nutrient adequacy ratio (NAR) with the Korean National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (KNHANES) VI 2013-2015 data. Study population was 8523 Korean adults. Multiple linear regression was performed to identify the association between eating behaviour and MAR and further study analysed how socioeconomic factors influence the diet quality of those who eat alone. RESULTS We found that the diet quality of people who eat alone was lower than that of people who eat together in both male (β: - 0.110, p = 0.002) and female participants (β: - 0.069, p = 0.005). Among who eats alone, the socioeconomic factors that negatively influenced MAR with the living arrangement, education level, income levels, and various occupation classifications. CONCLUSIONS People who eat alone have nutrition intake below the recommended amount. This could lead to serious health problems not only to those who are socially disadvantaged but also those who are in a higher social stratum. Policy-makers should develop strategies to enhance diet quality to prevent potential risk factors.
3.
Comparing Self-Report Measures of Internalized Weight Stigma: The Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire versus the Weight Bias Internalization Scale.
Hübner, C, Schmidt, R, Selle, J, Köhler, H, Müller, A, de Zwaan, M, Hilbert, A
PloS one. 2016;11(10):e0165566
-
-
-
Free full text
Plain language summary
Individuals with overweight and obesity are exposed to weight stigmatization in many domains of life, for example, in employment, in educational and health care settings, in the media as well as in interpersonal relationships. The aim of this study was to compare the psychometric properties and predictive values for health outcomes of two different self-report questionnaires (the Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire and the Weight Bias Internalization Scale). This study was part of a larger project that investigated the impact of body contouring surgery after bariatric surgery on psychosocial aspects. It is a cross-sectional study which included all data of a subsample consisting of N = 78 patients prior bariatric surgery. Results indicate that both measures did not differ with respect to overall convergent validity and predictive values for multiple psychosocial health outcomes. Findings also showed that the Weight Bias Internalization Scale has better internal consistency compared to the Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire. Authors suggest that clinical practice and research might give preference to the Weight Bias Internalization Scale in bariatric surgery samples because of the marginally better reliability, convergent validity, and greater predictive power.
Abstract
BACKGROUND Internalized weight stigma has gained growing interest due to its association with multiple health impairments in individuals with obesity. Especially high internalized weight stigma is reported by individuals undergoing bariatric surgery. For assessing this concept, two different self-report questionnaires are available, but have never been compared: the Weight Self-Stigma Questionnaire (WSSQ) and the Weight Bias Internalization Scale (WBIS). The purpose of the present study was to provide and to compare reliability, convergent validity with and predictive values for psychosocial health outcomes for the WSSQ and WBIS. METHODS The WSSQ and the WBIS were used to assess internalized weight stigma in N = 78 prebariatric surgery patients. Further, body mass index (BMI) was assessed and body image, quality of life, self-esteem, depression, and anxiety were measured by well-established self-report questionnaires. Reliability, correlation, and regression analyses were conducted. RESULTS Internal consistency of the WSSQ was acceptable, while good internal consistency was found for the WBIS. Both measures were significantly correlated with each other and body image. While only the WSSQ was correlated with overweight preoccupation, only the WBIS was correlated with appearance evaluation. Both measures were not associated with BMI. However, correlation coefficients did not differ between the WSSQ and the WBIS for all associations with validity measures. Further, both measures significantly predicted quality of life, self-esteem, depression, and anxiety, while the WBIS explained significantly more variance than the WSSQ total score for self-esteem. CONCLUSIONS Findings indicate the WSSQ and the WBIS to be reliable and valid assessments of internalized weight stigma in prebariatric surgery patients, although the WBIS showed marginally more favorable results than the WSSQ. For both measures, longitudinal studies on stability and predictive validity are warranted, for example, for weight-related and psychosocial outcomes.