A randomised, controlled, feasibility trial of an online, self-guided breathlessness supportive intervention (SELF-BREATHE) for individuals with chronic breathlessness due to advanced disease.

Introduction: SELF-BREATHE is a complex, transdiagnostic, supportive, digital breathlessness intervention co-developed with patients. SELF-BREATHE seeks to build capacity and resilience within health services by improving the lives of people with chronic breathlessness using nonpharmacological, self-management approaches. This study aimed to determine whether SELF-BREATHE is feasible to deliver and acceptable to patients living with chronic breathlessness. Methods: A parallel, two-arm, single-blind, single-centre, randomised controlled, mixed-methods feasibility trial with participants allocated to 1) intervention group (SELF-BREATHE) or 2) control group (usual National Health Service (NHS) care). The setting was a large multisite NHS foundation trust in south-east London, UK. The participants were patients living with chronic breathlessness due to advanced malignant or nonmalignant disease(s). Participants were randomly allocated (1:1) to an online, self-guided, breathlessness supportive intervention (SELF-BREATHE) and usual care or usual care alone, over 6 weeks. The a priori progression criteria were ≥30% of eligible patients given an information sheet consented to participate; ≥60% of participants logged on and accessed SELF-BREATHE within 2 weeks; and ≥70% of patients reported the methodology and intervention as acceptable. Results: Between January 2021 and January 2022, 52 (47%) out of 110 eligible patients consented and were randomised. Of those randomised to SELF-BREATHE, 19 (73%) out of 26 logged on and used SELF-BREATHE for a mean±sd (range) 9±8 (1-33) times over 6 weeks. 36 (70%) of the 52 randomised participants completed and returned the end-of-study postal questionnaires. SELF-BREATHE users reported it to be acceptable. Post-intervention qualitative interviews demonstrated that SELF-BREATHE was acceptable and valued by users, improving breathlessness during daily life and at points of breathlessness crisis. Conclusion: These data support the feasibility of moving to a fully powered, randomised controlled efficacy trial with minor modifications to minimise missing data (i.e. multiple methods of data collection: face-to-face, telephone, video assessment and by post).

A meta-ethnography investigating relational influences on mental health and cancer-related health care interventions for racially minoritised people in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: Despite calls to increase the 'cultural competence' of health care providers, racially minoritised people continue to experience a range of problems when it comes to health care, including discrimination. While relevant qualitative meta-syntheses have suggested better ways forward for health care for racialised minorities, many have lacked conceptual depth, and none have specifically investigated the relational dimensions involved in care. We set out to investigate the social and cultural influences on health care interventions, focusing on psychological approaches and/or cancer care to inform the trial of a new psychological therapy for those living with or beyond cancer. METHOD: A meta-ethnography approach was used to examine the relevant qualitative studies, following Noblit and Hare, and guided by patient involvement throughout. Papers were analysed between September 2018 and February 2023, with some interruptions caused by the Covid pandemic. The following databases were searched: Ovid MEDLINE, EBSCO CINAHL, Ovid Embase, EBSCO PsycINFO, Proquest Sociology Collection (including Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA), Sociological Abstracts and Sociology Database), EBSCO SocINDEX, Ovid AMED, and Web of Science. The systematic review protocol was registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (ID: CRD42018107695), and reporting follows the eMERGe Reporting Guidance for meta-ethnographies (France et al. 2019). RESULTS: Twenty-nine journal papers were included in the final review. Themes (third-order constructs) developed in the paper include the centrality of the patient-practitioner relationship; how participants give meaning to their illness in connection to others; how families (rather than individuals) may make health decisions; how links with a higher power and spiritual/religious others can play a role in coping; and the ways in which a hierarchy of help-seeking develops, frequently with the first port of call being the resources of oneself. Participants in studies had a need to avoid being 'othered' in their care, valuing practitioners that connected with them, and who were able to recognise them as whole and complex (sometimes described in relational languages like 'love'). Complex family-based health decision-making and/or the importance of relations with non-human interactants (e.g. God, spiritual beings) were frequently uncovered, not to mention the profoundly emergent nature of stigma, whereby families could be relatively safe havens for containing and dealing with health challenges. A conceptual framework of 'animated via (frequently hidden) affective relationality' emerged in the final synthesis, bringing all themes together, and drawing attention to the emergent nature of the salient issues facing minoritised patients in health care interactions. CONCLUSION: Our analysis is important because it sheds light on the hitherto buried relational forces animating and producing the specific issues facing racially minoritised patients, which study participants thought were largely overlooked, but to which professionals can readily relate (given the universal nature of human relations). Thus, training around the affective relationality of consultations could be a fruitful avenue to explore to improve care of diverse patients.

Effects of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea and impaired lung function following hospital admission due to COVID-19 in the UK: a prospective multicentre cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Sleep disturbance is common following hospital admission both for COVID-19 and other causes. The clinical associations of this for recovery after hospital admission are poorly understood despite sleep disturbance contributing to morbidity in other scenarios. We aimed to investigate the prevalence and nature of sleep disturbance after discharge following hospital admission for COVID-19 and to assess whether this was associated with dyspnoea. METHODS: CircCOVID was a prospective multicentre cohort substudy designed to investigate the effects of circadian disruption and sleep disturbance on recovery after COVID-19 in a cohort of participants aged 18 years or older, admitted to hospital for COVID-19 in the UK, and discharged between March, 2020, and October, 2021. Participants were recruited from the Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID). Follow-up data were collected at two timepoints: an early time point 2-7 months after hospital discharge and a later time point 10-14 months after hospital discharge. Sleep quality was assessed subjectively using the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and a numerical rating scale. Sleep quality was also assessed with an accelerometer worn on the wrist (actigraphy) for 14 days. Participants were also clinically phenotyped, including assessment of symptoms (ie, anxiety [Generalised Anxiety Disorder 7-item scale questionnaire], muscle function [SARC-F questionnaire], dyspnoea [Dyspnoea-12 questionnaire] and measurement of lung function), at the early timepoint after discharge. Actigraphy results were also compared to a matched UK Biobank cohort (non-hospitalised individuals and recently hospitalised individuals). Multivariable linear regression was used to define associations of sleep disturbance with the primary outcome of breathlessness and the other clinical symptoms. PHOSP-COVID is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: 2320 of 2468 participants in the PHOSP-COVID study attended an early timepoint research visit a median of 5 months (IQR 4-6) following discharge from 83 hospitals in the UK. Data for sleep quality were assessed by subjective measures (the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire and the numerical rating scale) for 638 participants at the early time point. Sleep quality was also assessed using device-based measures (actigraphy) a median of 7 months (IQR 5-8 months) after discharge from hospital for 729 participants. After discharge from hospital, the majority (396 [62%] of 638) of participants who had been admitted to hospital for COVID-19 reported poor sleep quality in response to the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index questionnaire. A comparable proportion (338 [53%] of 638) of participants felt their sleep quality had deteriorated following discharge after COVID-19 admission, as assessed by the numerical rating scale. Device-based measurements were compared to an age-matched, sex-matched, BMI-matched, and time from discharge-matched UK Biobank cohort who had recently been admitted to hospital. Compared to the recently hospitalised matched UK Biobank cohort, participants in our study slept on average 65 min (95% CI 59 to 71) longer, had a lower sleep regularity index (-19%; 95% CI -20 to -16), and a lower sleep efficiency (3·83 percentage points; 95% CI 3·40 to 4·26). Similar results were obtained when comparisons were made with the non-hospitalised UK Biobank cohort. Overall sleep quality (unadjusted effect estimate 3·94; 95% CI 2·78 to 5·10), deterioration in sleep quality following hospital admission (3·00; 1·82 to 4·28), and sleep regularity (4·38; 2·10 to 6·65) were associated with higher dyspnoea scores. Poor sleep quality, deterioration in sleep quality, and sleep regularity were also associated with impaired lung function, as assessed by forced vital capacity. Depending on the sleep metric, anxiety mediated 18-39% of the effect of sleep disturbance on dyspnoea, while muscle weakness mediated 27-41% of this effect. INTERPRETATION: Sleep disturbance following hospital admission for COVID-19 is associated with dyspnoea, anxiety, and muscle weakness. Due to the association with multiple symptoms, targeting sleep disturbance might be beneficial in treating the post-COVID-19 condition. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institute for Health Research, and Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council.

Fatigue outcomes following COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Fatigue is a pervasive clinical symptom in coronaviruses and may continue beyond the acute phase, lasting for several months or years. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to incorporate the current evidence for postinfection fatigue among survivors of SARS-CoV-2 and investigate associated factors. METHODS: Embase, PsyINFO, Medline, CINAHL, CDSR, Open Grey, BioRxiv and MedRxiv were systematically searched from January 2019 to December 2021. Eligible records included all study designs in English. Outcomes were fatigue or vitality in adults with a confirmed diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 measured at >30 days post infection. Non-confirmed cases were excluded. JBI risk of bias was assessed by three reviewers. Random effects model was used for the pooled proportion with 95% CIs. A mixed effects meta-regression of 35 prospective articles calculated change in fatigue overtime. Subgroup analyses explored specific group characteristics of study methodology. Heterogeneity was assessed using Cochran's Q and I2 statistic. Egger's tests for publication bias. RESULTS: Database searches returned 14 262 records. Following deduplication and screening, 178 records were identified. 147 (n=48 466 participants) were included for the meta-analyses. Pooled prevalence was 41% (95% CI: 37% to 45%, k=147, I2=98%). Fatigue significantly reduced over time (-0.057, 95% CI: -107 to -0.008, k=35, I2=99.3%, p=0.05). A higher proportion of fatigue was found in studies using a valid scale (51%, 95% CI: 43% to 58%, k=36, I2=96.2%, p=0.004). No significant difference was found for fatigue by study design (p=0.272). Egger's test indicated publication bias for all analyses except valid scales. Quality assessments indicated 4% at low risk of bias, 78% at moderate risk and 18% at high risk. Frequently reported associations were female gender, age, physical functioning, breathlessness and psychological distress. CONCLUSION: This study revealed that a significant proportion of survivors experienced fatigue following SARS-CoV-2 and their fatigue reduced overtime. Non-modifiable factors and psychological morbidity may contribute to ongoing fatigue and impede recovery. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42020201247.

Long COVID-six months of prospective follow-up of changes in symptom profiles of non-hospitalised children and young people after SARS-CoV-2 testing: A national matched cohort study (The CLoCk) study.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the prevalence and natural trajectory of post-COVID symptoms in young people, despite very high numbers of young people having acute COVID. To date, there has been no prospective follow-up to establish the pattern of symptoms over a 6-month time period. METHODS: A non-hospitalised, national sample of 3,395 (1,737 SARS-COV-2 Negative;1,658 SARS-COV-2 Positive at baseline) children and young people (CYP) aged 11-17 completed questionnaires 3 and 6 months after PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection between January and March 2021 and were compared with age, sex and geographically-matched test-negative CYP. RESULTS: Three months after a positive SARS-CoV-2 PCR test, 11 of the 21 most common symptoms reported by >10% of CYP had reduced. There was a further decline at 6 months. By 3 and 6 months the prevalence of chills, fever, myalgia, cough and sore throat of CYP who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 reduced from 10-25% at testing to <3%. The prevalence of loss of smell declined from 21% to 5% at 3 months and 4% at 6 months. Prevalence of shortness of breath and tiredness also declined, but at a lower rate. Among test-negatives, the same common symptoms and trends were observed at lower prevalence's. Importantly, in some instances (shortness of breath, tiredness) the overall prevalence of specific individual symptoms at 3 and 6 months was higher than at PCR-testing because these symptoms were reported in new cohorts of CYP who had not reported the specific individual symptom previously. CONCLUSIONS: In CYP, the prevalence of specific symptoms reported at time of PCR-testing declined with time. Similar patterns were observed among test-positives and test-negatives and new symptoms were reported six months post-test for both groups suggesting that symptoms are unlikely to exclusively be a specific consequence of SARS-COV-2 infection. Many CYP experienced unwanted symptoms that warrant investigation and potential intervention.

"The whole of humanity has lungs, doesn't it? We are not all the same sort of people": patient preferences and choices for an online, self-guided chronic breathlessness supportive intervention: SELF-BREATHE.

Introduction: The burden of chronic breathlessness on individuals, family, society and health systems is significant and set to increase exponentially with an ageing population with complex multimorbidity, yet there is a lack of services. This has been further amplified by the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Online breathlessness interventions have been proposed to fill this gap, but need development and evaluation based on patient preferences and choices. This study aimed to explore the preferences and choices of patients regarding the content of an online self-guided chronic breathlessness supportive intervention (SELF-BREATHE). Methods: Semi-structured telephone interviews were conducted with adults living with advanced malignant and nonmalignant disease and chronic breathlessness (July to November 2020). Interviews were analysed using conventional and summative content analysis. Results: 25 patients with advanced disease and chronic breathlessness (COPD n=13, lung cancer n=8, interstitial lung disease n=3, bronchiectasis n=1; 17 male; median (range) age 70 (47-86) years; median (range) Medical Research Council dyspnoea score 3 (2-5)) were interviewed. Individuals highlighted strong preferences for focused education, methods to increase self-motivation and engagement, interventions targeting breathing and physical function, software capability to personalise the content of SELF-BREATHE to make it more meaningful to the user, and aesthetically designed content using various communication methods including written, video and audio content. Furthermore, they identified the need to address motivation as a key potential determinant of the success of SELF-BREATHE. Conclusion: Our findings provide an essential foundation for future digital intervention development (SELF-BREATHE) and scaled research.

A cross-sectional study of the health of emerging young adults in England following a COVID-19 infection

Purpose This study describes long COVID symptomatology in a national sample of 18–20-year-olds with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 and matched test-negative controls in England. Symptoms in 18-20-year-olds were compared to younger adolescents (aged 11-17 years) and all adults (18+). Methods A national database was used to identify SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive 18–20-year-olds and test-negative controls matched by time of test, age, gender and geographical region. Participants were invited to complete a questionnaire about their health retrospectively at time of test and also when completing the questionnaire. Comparison cohorts included Children and Young People with Long COVID and Real-time Assessment of Community Transmission studies. Results Of 14,986 people invited, 1,001 were included in the analysis (562 test-positive;440 test-negative). At testing, 46.5% of test-positives and 16.4% of test-negatives reported at least one symptom. At the time of questionnaire completion (median 7 months post-testing), 61.5% of test-positives and 47.5% of test-negatives reported one or more symptoms. The most common symptoms were similar amongst test-positives and test-negatives and included tiredness (44.0%;35.7%), shortness of breath (28.8%;16.3%) and headaches (13.7%;12.0%). Prevalence rates were similar to those reported by 11-17-year-olds (66.5%) and higher than those reported in all adults (37.7%). For 18-20-year-olds, there was no significant difference in health-related quality of life and wellbeing (p>0.05). However, test-positives reported being significantly more tired than test-negatives (p=0.04). Conclusions Seven months after PCR test, a high proportion of test-positive and test-negative 18-20-year-olds reported similar symptoms to each other and to those experienced by younger and older counterparts.

A Cross-Sectional Study of the Health of Emerging Young Adults in England Following a COVID-19 Infection.

PURPOSE: This study describes long COVID symptomatology in a national sample of 18- to 20-year-olds with Polymerase Chain Reaction (PCR)-confirmed Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS­CoV­2) and matched test-negative controls in England. Symptoms in 18- to 20-year-olds were compared to symptoms in younger adolescents (aged 11-17 years) and all adults (18+). METHODS: A national database was used to identify SARS-CoV-2 PCR-positive 18- to 20-year-olds and test-negative controls matched by time of test, age, gender, and geographical region. Participants were invited to complete a questionnaire about their health retrospectively at time of test and also when completing the questionnaire. Comparison cohorts included children and young people with long COVID and REal-time Assessment of Community Transmission studies. RESULTS: Of 14,986 people invited, 1,001 were included in the analysis (562 test-positive; 440 test-negative). At testing, 46.5% of test-positives and 16.4% of test-negatives reported at least one symptom. At the time of questionnaire completion (median 7 months post-testing), 61.5% of test-positives and 47.5% of test-negatives reported one or more symptoms. The most common symptoms were similar amongst test-positives and test-negatives and included tiredness (44.0%; 35.7%), shortness of breath (28.8%; 16.3%), and headaches (13.7%; 12.0%). Prevalence rates were similar to those reported by 11-17-year-olds (66.5%) and higher than those reported in all adults (37.7%). For 18- to 20-year-olds, there was no significant difference in health-related quality of life and well-being (p > .05). However, test-positives reported being significantly more tired than test-negatives (p = .04). DISCUSSION: Seven months after PCR test, a high proportion of test-positive and test-negative 18- to 20-year-olds reported similar symptoms to each other and to those experienced by younger and older counterparts.

Increases in stress hormone levels in a UK population during the COVID-19 pandemic: A prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Research suggests that psychological factors may influence vulnerability to SARS-CoV-2 infection, although the mechanisms are unclear. PURPOSE: We examined whether the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis may be a possible mechanism, by measuring the relationship between indices of psychological distress and cortisone in hair (hairE) in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: Participants (N = 827) provided two 3 cm hair samples over a 6-month period between April-September 2020. Samples reflected hairE in the 3 months prior to the collection date. RESULTS: HairE in the first samples (T1: commenced April 2020) did not differ significantly from pre-pandemic population norms. However, hairE in the second samples (T2: commenced July 2020) were significantly higher than T1 and pre-pandemic population norms, with a 23% increase between T1 and T2. Linear regressions, controlling for age and gender, demonstrated that at both timepoints, hairE levels were greatest in people with a history of mental health difficulties. In addition, stress reported at T1 predicted greater hairE at T2 and a greater change in hairE between T1 and T2. CONCLUSIONS: These findings demonstrate that during the COVID-19 pandemic hairE was substantially elevated across a large community cohort, with greatest levels in those with a history of mental health difficulties and greatest changes in those reporting greatest levels of stress early in the pandemic. Further research is required with verified SARS-CoV-2 outcomes to determine whether the HPA axis is among the mechanisms by which a history of mental health difficulties and stress influence SARS-CoV-2 outcomes.

Natural course of health and well-being in non-hospitalised children and young people after testing for SARS-CoV-2: a prospective follow-up study over 12 months.

Background: Despite high numbers of children and young people (CYP) having acute COVID, there has been no prospective follow-up of CYP to establish the pattern of health and well-being over a year following infection. Methods: A non-hospitalised, national sample of 5086 (2909 SARS-COV-2 Positive; 2177 SARS-COV-2 Negative at baseline) CYP aged 11-17 completed questionnaires 6- and 12-months after PCR-tests between October 2020 and March 2021 confirming SARS-CoV-2 infection (excluding CYP with subsequent (re)infections). SARS-COV-2 Positive CYP was compared to age, sex and geographically-matched test-negative CYP. Findings: Ten of 21 symptoms had a prevalence less than 10% at baseline, 6- and 12-months post-test in both test-positives and test-negatives. Of the other 11 symptoms, in test-positives who had these at baseline, the prevalence of all symptoms declined greatly by 12-months. For CYP first describing one of these at 6-months, there was a decline in prevalence by 12-months. The overall prevalence of 9 of 11 symptoms declined by 12-months. As many CYP first described shortness of breath and tiredness at either 6- or 12-months, the overall prevalence of these two symptoms in test-positives appeared to increase by 6-months and increase further by 12-months. However, within-individual examination demonstrated that the prevalence of shortness of breath and tiredness actually declined in those first describing these two symptoms at either baseline or 6-months. This pattern was also evident for these two symptoms in test-negatives. Similar patterns were observed for validated measures of poor quality of life, emotional and behavioural difficulties, poor well-being and fatigue. Moreover, broadly similar patterns and results were noted for the sub-sample (N = 1808) that had data at baseline, 3-, 6- and 12-months post-test. Interpretation: In CYP, the prevalence of adverse symptoms reported at the time of a positive PCR-test declined over 12-months. Some test-positives and test-negatives reported adverse symptoms for the first time at six- and 12-months post-test, particularly tiredness, shortness of breath, poor quality of life, poor well-being and fatigue suggesting they are likely to be caused by multiple factors. Funding: NIHR/UKRI (ref: COVLT0022).

Risk Factors and Changes in Depression and Anxiety over Time in New Zealand during COVID-19: A Longitudinal Cohort Study

This longitudinal study investigated changes in and risk factors for anxiety and depression during the COVID-19 pandemic in a New Zealand cohort. Online surveys were distributed to 681 participants at three time-points: May 2020 (Time 1), August–September 2020 (Time 2), and March–April 2021 (Time 3). Participants completed measures of anxiety and depression, alongside measures of possible risk/protective factors. A total of 261 participants completed all three surveys and were included in analyses. Depression and anxiety reduced over time;however, levels were still significantly higher than pre-pandemic norms. Being younger, having a prior mental health disorder, experiencing negative life events due to COVID-19, and being a pet owner were risk factors for poorer depression and anxiety, whereas having higher positive mood was protective. This study demonstrates persisting negative effects of the pandemic on anxiety and depression in a context of low transmission and highlights the importance of providing psychological help to those most at risk.

Joint patient and clinician priority setting to identify 10 key research questions regarding the long-term sequelae of COVID-19.

Given the large numbers of people infected and high rates of ongoing morbidity, research is clearly required to address the needs of adult survivors of COVID-19 living with ongoing symptoms (long COVID). To help direct resource and research efforts, we completed a research prioritisation process incorporating views from adults with ongoing symptoms of COVID-19, carers, clinicians and clinical researchers. The final top 10 research questions were agreed at an independently mediated workshop and included: identifying underlying mechanisms of long COVID, establishing diagnostic tools, understanding trajectory of recovery and evaluating the role of interventions both during the acute and persistent phases of the illness.

The prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for symptoms of depression and anxiety in a UK cohort during the COVID-19 pandemic.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has had profound consequences for population mental health. However, it is less clear for whom these effects are sustained. AIMS: To investigate the prevalence, incidence, prognosis and risk factors for symptoms of depression and anxiety in a UK cohort over three distinct periods in the pandemic in 2020. METHOD: An online survey was completed by a UK community cohort at three points (n = 3097 at baseline, n = 878 completed all surveys): April (baseline), July to September (time point 2) and November to December (time point 3). Participants completed validated measures of depression and anxiety on each occasion, and we prospectively explored the role of sociodemographic and psychological factors (loneliness, positive mood and perceived risk of and worry about COVID-19) as risk factors. RESULTS: Depression (Patient Health Questionnaire-9 means: baseline, 7.69; time point 2, 5.53; time point 3, 6.06) and anxiety scores (Generalised Anxiety Disorder-7 means: baseline, 6.59; time point 2, 4.60; time point 3, 4.98) were considerably greater than pre-pandemic population norms at all time points. Women reported greater depression and anxiety symptoms than men. Younger age, history of mental health disorder, more COVID-19-related negative life events, greater loneliness and lower positive mood at baseline were all significant predictors of poorer mental health at time point 3. CONCLUSIONS: The negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health has persisted to some degree. Younger people and individuals with prior mental health disorders are at greatest risk. Easing of restrictions and resumption of social interaction could mitigate the risk factors of loneliness and positive mood.

Physical and mental health 3 months after SARS-CoV-2 infection (long COVID) among adolescents in England (CLoCk): a national matched cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We describe post-COVID symptomatology in a non-hospitalised, national sample of adolescents aged 11-17 years with PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection compared with matched adolescents with negative PCR status. METHODS: In this national cohort study, adolescents aged 11-17 years from the Public Health England database who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 between January and March, 2021, were matched by month of test, age, sex, and geographical region to adolescents who tested negative. 3 months after testing, a subsample of adolescents were contacted to complete a detailed questionnaire, which collected data on demographics and their physical and mental health at the time of PCR testing (retrospectively) and at the time of completing the questionnaire (prospectively). We compared symptoms between the test-postive and test-negative groups, and used latent class analysis to assess whether and how physical symptoms at baseline and at 3 months clustered among participants. This study is registered with the ISRCTN registry (ISRCTN 34804192). FINDINGS: 23 048 adolescents who tested positive and 27 798 adolescents who tested negative between Jan 1, 2021, and March 31, 2021, were contacted, and 6804 adolescents (3065 who tested positive and 3739 who tested negative) completed the questionnaire (response rate 13·4%). At PCR testing, 1084 (35·4%) who tested positive and 309 (8·3%) who tested negative were symptomatic and 936 (30·5%) from the test-positive group and 231 (6·2%) from the test-negative group had three or more symptoms. 3 months after testing, 2038 (66·5%) who tested positive and 1993 (53·3%) who tested negative had any symptoms, and 928 (30·3%) from the test-positive group and 603 (16·2%) from the test-negative group had three or more symptoms. At 3 months after testing, the most common symptoms among the test-positive group were tiredness (1196 [39·0%]), headache (710 [23·2%]), and shortness of breath (717 [23·4%]), and among the test-negative group were tiredness (911 [24·4%]), headache (530 [14·2%]), and other (unspecified; 590 [15·8%]). Latent class analysis identified two classes, characterised by few or multiple symptoms. The estimated probability of being in the multiple symptom class was 29·6% (95% CI 27·4-31·7) for the test-positive group and 19·3% (17·7-21·0) for the test-negative group (risk ratio 1·53; 95% CI 1·35-1·70). The multiple symptoms class was more frequent among those with positive PCR results than negative results, in girls than boys, in adolescents aged 15-17 years than those aged 11-14 years, and in those with lower pretest physical and mental health. INTERPRETATION: Adolescents who tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 had similar symptoms to those who tested negative, but had a higher prevalence of single and, particularly, multiple symptoms at the time of PCR testing and 3 months later. Clinicians should consider multiple symptoms that affect functioning and recognise different clusters of symptoms. The multiple and varied symptoms show that a multicomponent intervention will be required, and that mental and physical health symptoms occur concurrently, reflecting their close relationship. FUNDING: UK Department of Health and Social Care, in their capacity as the National Institute for Health Research, and UK Research and Innovation.

Psychological Predictors of Self-reported COVID-19 Outcomes: Results From a Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Previous research has shown that psychological factors, such as stress and social support, are associated with greater susceptibility to viral respiratory illnesses and more severe symptoms. During the COVID-19 pandemic there has been a well-documented deterioration in psychological well-being and increased social isolation. This raises questions as to whether those experiencing psychological adversity during the pandemic are more at risk of contracting and/or experiencing COVID-19 symptoms. PURPOSE: To examine the relationship between psychological factors and the risk of COVID-19 self-reported infection and the symptomatic experience of SARS-CoV-2 (indicated by the number and severity of symptoms). METHODS: As part of a longitudinal prospective observational cohort study, 1,087 adults completed validated measures of psychological well-being during April 2020 and self-reported incidence of COVID-19 infection and symptom experience across the pandemic through to December 2020. Regression models were used to explore these relationships controlling for demographic and occupational factors. RESULTS: Greater psychological distress during the early phase of the pandemic was significantly associated with subsequent self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection as well as the experience of a greater number and more severe symptoms. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 infection and symptoms may be more common among those experiencing elevated psychological distress. Further research to elucidate the mechanisms underlying these associations is needed.

Association of SARS-CoV-2 Infection With Psychological Distress, Psychotropic Prescribing, Fatigue, and Sleep Problems Among UK Primary Care Patients.

Importance: Infection with SARS-CoV-2 is associated with fatigue and sleep problems long after the acute phase of COVID-19. In addition, there are concerns of SARS-CoV-2 infection causing psychiatric illness; however, evidence of a direct effect is inconclusive. Objective: To assess risk of risk of incident or repeat psychiatric illness, fatigue, or sleep problems following SARS-CoV-2 infection and to analyze changes according to demographic subgroups. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cohort study assembled matched cohorts using the Clinical Practice Research Datalink Aurum, a UK primary care registry of 11 923 499 individuals aged 16 years or older. Patients were followed-up for up to 10 months, from February 1 to December 9, 2020. Individuals with less than 2 years of historical data or less than 1 week follow-up were excluded. Individuals with positive results on a SARS-CoV-2 test without prior mental illness or with anxiety or depression, psychosis, fatigue, or sleep problems were matched with up to 4 controls based on sex, general practice, and year of birth. Controls were individuals who had negative SARS-CoV-2 test results. Data were analyzed from January to July 2021. Exposure: SARS-CoV-2 infection, determined via polymerase chain reaction testing. Main Outcomes and Measures: Cox proportional hazard models estimated the association between a positive SARS-CoV-2 test result and subsequent psychiatric morbidity (depression, anxiety, psychosis, or self-harm), sleep problems, fatigue, or psychotropic prescribing. Models adjusted for comorbidities, ethnicity, smoking, and body mass index. Results: Of 11 923 105 eligible individuals (6 011 020 [50.4%] women and 5 912 085 [49.6%] men; median [IQR] age, 44 [30-61] years), 232 780 individuals (2.0%) had positive result on a SARS-CoV-2 test. After applying selection criteria, 86 922 individuals were in the matched cohort without prior mental illness, 19 020 individuals had prior anxiety or depression, 1036 individuals had psychosis, 4152 individuals had fatigue, and 4539 individuals had sleep problems. After adjusting for observed confounders, there was an association between positive SARS-CoV-2 test results and psychiatric morbidity (adjusted hazard ratio [aHR], 1.83; 95% CI, 1.66-2.02), fatigue (aHR, 5.98; 95% CI, 5.33-6.71), and sleep problems (aHR, 3.16; 95% CI, 2.64-3.78). However, there was a similar risk of incident psychiatric morbidity for those with a negative SARS-CoV-2 test results (aHR, 1.71; 95% CI, 1.65-1.77) and a larger increase associated with influenza (aHR, 2.98; 95% CI, 1.55-5.75). Conclusions and Relevance: In this cohort study of individuals registered at an English primary care practice during the pandemic, there was consistent evidence that SARS-CoV-2 infection was associated with increased risk of fatigue and sleep problems. However, the results from the negative control analysis suggest that unobserved confounding may be responsible for at least some of the positive association between COVID-19 and psychiatric morbidity.

Physical, cognitive, and mental health impacts of COVID-19 after hospitalisation (PHOSP-COVID): a UK multicentre, prospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: The impact of COVID-19 on physical and mental health and employment after hospitalisation with acute disease is not well understood. The aim of this study was to determine the effects of COVID-19-related hospitalisation on health and employment, to identify factors associated with recovery, and to describe recovery phenotypes. METHODS: The Post-hospitalisation COVID-19 study (PHOSP-COVID) is a multicentre, long-term follow-up study of adults (aged ≥18 years) discharged from hospital in the UK with a clinical diagnosis of COVID-19, involving an assessment between 2 and 7 months after discharge, including detailed recording of symptoms, and physiological and biochemical testing. Multivariable logistic regression was done for the primary outcome of patient-perceived recovery, with age, sex, ethnicity, body-mass index, comorbidities, and severity of acute illness as covariates. A post-hoc cluster analysis of outcomes for breathlessness, fatigue, mental health, cognitive impairment, and physical performance was done using the clustering large applications k-medoids approach. The study is registered on the ISRCTN Registry (ISRCTN10980107). FINDINGS: We report findings for 1077 patients discharged from hospital between March 5 and Nov 30, 2020, who underwent assessment at a median of 5·9 months (IQR 4·9-6·5) after discharge. Participants had a mean age of 58 years (SD 13); 384 (36%) were female, 710 (69%) were of white ethnicity, 288 (27%) had received mechanical ventilation, and 540 (50%) had at least two comorbidities. At follow-up, only 239 (29%) of 830 participants felt fully recovered, 158 (20%) of 806 had a new disability (assessed by the Washington Group Short Set on Functioning), and 124 (19%) of 641 experienced a health-related change in occupation. Factors associated with not recovering were female sex, middle age (40-59 years), two or more comorbidities, and more severe acute illness. The magnitude of the persistent health burden was substantial but only weakly associated with the severity of acute illness. Four clusters were identified with different severities of mental and physical health impairment (n=767): very severe (131 patients, 17%), severe (159, 21%), moderate along with cognitive impairment (127, 17%), and mild (350, 46%). Of the outcomes used in the cluster analysis, all were closely related except for cognitive impairment. Three (3%) of 113 patients in the very severe cluster, nine (7%) of 129 in the severe cluster, 36 (36%) of 99 in the moderate cluster, and 114 (43%) of 267 in the mild cluster reported feeling fully recovered. Persistently elevated serum C-reactive protein was positively associated with cluster severity. INTERPRETATION: We identified factors related to not recovering after hospital admission with COVID-19 at 6 months after discharge (eg, female sex, middle age, two or more comorbidities, and more acute severe illness), and four different recovery phenotypes. The severity of physical and mental health impairments were closely related, whereas cognitive health impairments were independent. In clinical care, a proactive approach is needed across the acute severity spectrum, with interdisciplinary working, wide access to COVID-19 holistic clinical services, and the potential to stratify care. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation and National Institute for Health Research.

Depression, anxiety and stress during the COVID-19 pandemic: results from a New Zealand cohort study on mental well-being.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic has caused unprecedented disruption to daily life. This study investigated depression, anxiety and stress in New Zealand (NZ) during the first 10 weeks of the COVID-19 pandemic, and associated psychological and behavioural factors. It also compares the results with a similar cross-sectional study in the UK. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: NZ community cohort. PARTICIPANTS: N=681 adults (≥18 years) in NZ. The cohort was predominantly female (89%) with a mean age of 42 years (range 18-87). Most (74%) identified as NZ European and almost half (46%) were keyworkers. Most were non-smokers (95%) and 20% identified themselves as having clinical risk factors which would put them at increased or greatest risk of COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression, anxiety, stress, positive mood and engagement in health behaviours (smoking, exercise, alcohol consumption). RESULTS: Depression and anxiety significantly exceeded population norms (p<0.0001). Being younger (p<0.0001) and most at risk of COVID-19 (p<0.05) were associated with greater depression, anxiety and stress. Greater positive mood, lower loneliness and greater exercise were protective factors for all outcomes (p<0.0001). Smoking (p=0.037) and alcohol consumption (p<0.05) were associated with increased anxiety. Pet ownership was associated with lower depression (p=0.006) and anxiety (p=0.008). When adjusting for age and gender differences, anxiety (p=0.002) and stress (p=0.007) were significantly lower in NZ than in the UK. The NZ sample reported lower perceived risk (p<0.0001) and worry about COVID-19 (p<0.0001) than the UK sample. CONCLUSIONS: The NZ population had higher depression and anxiety compared with population norms. Younger people and those most at risk of COVID-19 reported poorer mental health. Interventions should promote frequent exercise, and reduce loneliness and unhealthy behaviours.

Young people, mental health and COVID-19 infection: the canaries we put in the coal mine.

OBJECTIVES: The number of people testing positive for Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-COV-2) in the UK, particularly among young adults, is increasing. We report here on the mental health of young adults and related psychological and behavioural responses to the pandemic and consider the role of these factors in fuelling the increase in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in this group. METHODS: An online survey was completed during the first six weeks of the first UK-wide lockdown by 3097 respondents, including data for 364 respondents aged 18-24 years. The survey included measures of mental health and indices capturing related psychological and behavioural responses to the pandemic. RESULTS: The mental health of 18- to 24-years-olds in the first 6 weeks of lockdown was significantly poorer than that of older respondents and previously published norms: with 84% reporting symptoms of depression and 72% reporting symptoms of anxiety. Young adults also reported significantly greater loneliness and reduced positive mood, both of which were also associated with greater mental health difficulties. CONCLUSIONS: We contend that the combination of mental health, social and economic considerations may have contributed to the rise of COVID-19 infections in young adults, and ascribing blame to this group will not aid our efforts to regain control of the disease.

Mental health in the UK during the COVID-19 pandemic: cross-sectional analyses from a community cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: Previous pandemics have resulted in significant consequences for mental health. Here, we report the mental health sequelae of the COVID-19 pandemic in a UK cohort and examine modifiable and non-modifiable explanatory factors associated with mental health outcomes. We focus on the first wave of data collection, which examined short-term consequences for mental health, as reported during the first 4-6 weeks of social distancing measures being introduced. DESIGN: Cross-sectional online survey. SETTING: Community cohort study. PARTICIPANTS: N=3097 adults aged ≥18 years were recruited through a mainstream and social media campaign between 3 April 2020 and 30 April 2020. The cohort was predominantly female (n=2618); mean age 44 years; 10% (n=296) from minority ethnic groups; 50% (n=1559) described themselves as key workers and 20% (n=649) identified as having clinical risk factors putting them at increased risk of COVID-19. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Depression, anxiety and stress scores. RESULTS: Mean scores for depression ([Formula: see text] =7.69, SD=6.0), stress ([Formula: see text] =6.48, SD=3.3) and anxiety ([Formula: see text] = 6.48, SD=3.3) significantly exceeded population norms (all p<0.0001). Analysis of non-modifiable factors hypothesised to be associated with mental health outcomes indicated that being younger, female and in a recognised COVID-19 risk group were associated with increased stress, anxiety and depression, with the final multivariable models accounting for 7%-14% of variance. When adding modifiable factors, significant independent effects emerged for positive mood, perceived loneliness and worry about getting COVID-19 for all outcomes, with the final multivariable models accounting for 54%-57% of total variance. CONCLUSIONS: Increased psychological morbidity was evident in this UK sample and found to be more common in younger people, women and in individuals who identified as being in recognised COVID-19 risk groups. Public health and mental health interventions able to ameliorate perceptions of risk of COVID-19, worry about COVID-19 loneliness and boost positive mood may be effective.