ABSTRACT
Background: The clinical sequelae (Long Covid) of acute Covid-19 are recognised globally, yet the risk of developing them is unknown. Methods: A living systematic review (second version). Bibliographical records from the C19 Living Map Long Covid segment (22nd February 2022), Medline, CINAHL, Global Health, WHO Covid-19 database, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar (18th November 2021). We included studies with at least 100 people at 12 weeks or more post-Covid-19 onset and with a control group without confirmed Covid-19. Risk of bias was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa scale. Symptoms are aligned with the Post Covid-19 Condition Core Outcome Set. We present descriptive statistics and use meta-analysis to estimate the relative risk of experiencing Long Covid. Results Twenty-eight studies were included: 20 cohort, five case-controls, three cross-sectional. Studies reported on 242,715 people with Covid-19 (55.6% female) and 276,317 controls (55.7% female) in 16 countries. Most were of moderate quality (71%). Only two were set in low-middle-income countries and few included children (18%). The longest mean follow-up time was 419.8 (standard deviation 49.4) days post-diagnosis. The relative risk (RR) of experiencing persistent or new symptoms in cases compared with controls was 1.53 (95% CI: 1.50 to 1.56). The core outcomes with the highest increased risk were cardiovascular (RR 2.53 95% CI: 2.16 to 2.96), cognitive (RR 1.99; 95% CI: 1.82 to 2.17), and physical functioning (RR 1.85; 95% CI: 1.75 to 1.96). Conclusion: SARS-CoV-2 infection is associated with a higher risk of new or persistent symptoms when compared with controls that can last over a year following acute Covid-19. There is still a lack of robust studies set in lower resourced settings and current studies have high heterogeneity and potential misclassifications of cases and controls. Future research should explore the role of vaccination and different variants on the risk of developing Long Covid.
Subject(s)
COVID-19ABSTRACT
BackgroundThe issue of consent for vaccine programmes has been highlighted recently by global pandemic caused by COVID – 19 and the need for rapid uptake of vaccinations. ‘Vaccine hesitancy’ is now an ordinary part of the conversation when discussing population-based programmes aimed at reducing the spread of disease. To provide, refuse or delay consent is has often seen as tangible expression of the acceptability of public health intervention, but debate has started to include the consent process itself, particularly where one person is making the decision for another e.g parent for child. In developed countries parental consent is required prior to vaccination of children. Health professionals are trained to provide medical facts to parent to help them make a choice but not to interfere in personal decisions. However, deciding whether to consent to or refuse vaccination on behalf of a child can be a difficult task for some parents and there is little understanding of the influences that facilitate or impede parents’ decision making.The following question was posed: What influences parents’ decisions to provide or refuse their consent for inclusion into public health programmes aimed at their school age children (4-18 years) in developed national healthcare systems?MethodsThis is a systematic review that uses qualitative meta-synthesis. PsychINFO, PsycARTICLES, MEDLINE and the International Bibliography of the Social Sciences were searched for papers. After screening abstracts and full texts, 14 papers were subject to quality standards review and ultimately nine papers were included in the final review. First, second, and third order constructs were identified. First order constructs were taken as participant views, interpretations put forward by the papers’ authors were deemed second order constructs, before any commonalities were identified and grouped into third order constructs that were subsequently arranged into seven major analytical themes.FindingsParents’ provide or refuse consent based on more than the factual, evidence-based information supplied by health professionals. Personal information from a trusted source often has more influence, with parents valuing this ‘evidence’ as much as traditional scientific information. Consent decisions reflect the fact that people are inherently social beings that are politically and economically located in society. Parents’ consent decisions are influenced by a complex web of circumstances. ConclusionWe should not think of consent for public health interventions in simplistic terms i.e. where medically factual information is provided by health professionals on with no other input and on which we expect parents to make a decision. This is an outdated mode of operating based on medical model of health.
ABSTRACT
ObjectiveTo understand the frequency, profile, and duration of persistent symptoms of covid-19 and to update this understanding as new evidence emerges. DesignA living systematic review produced in response to the rapidly evolving evidence base for long covid. Data sourcesMedline and CINAHL (EBSCO), Global Health (Ovid), WHO Global Research Database on covid-19, LitCOVID, and Google Scholar to 28th September 2020. Study selectionStudies reporting long-term symptoms and complications among people with confirmed or suspected covid-19, both in those previously hospitalised and those never hospitalised. Only studies incorporating over 100 participants qualified for data extraction and were assessed for risk of bias. Results were analysed using descriptive statistics. Quality assessmentRisk of bias was assessed using a quality assessment checklist for prevalence studies. ResultsTwenty-eight studies qualified for data extraction; 16 of these were cohort studies, ten cross-sectional, and two large case series. The analysis included 9,442 adults with covid-19 from 13 countries. The longest mean follow-up period was 111 (SD: 11) days post-hospital discharge. A wide range of systemic, cardiopulmonary, gastrointestinal, neurological, and psychosocial symptoms was reported, of which the most common were breathlessness, fatigue, smell and taste disturbance, and anxiety. Persistent symptoms were described across both previously hospitalised and non-hospitalised populations. The quality of evidence was low, with a high risk of bias and heterogeneity in prevalence. The incorporated studies demonstrated limited external validity, a lack of control subjects, and inconsistent data collection methods. Few studies were conducted in primary care, no studies focused solely on children, and no studies were set in low- and middle-income countries. ConclusionOur findings suggest that long covid is a complex, heterogeneous condition; however, the limited evidence base currently precludes a precise definition of its symptoms and prevalence. There is a clear need for robust, controlled, prospective cohort studies, including different at-risk populations and settings, incorporating appropriate investigations, collected and recorded in a standardised way. Systematic review registrationThe protocol was prospectively registered on the PROSPERO database (CRD42020211131). Readers noteThis living systematic review will be updated regularly as new evidence emerges. The search terms and inclusion criteria will be updated in line with new evidence, research priorities and policy needs. This version is the original publication. Updates may occur for up to two years from the date of original publication. When citing this paper please consider adding the version number and date of access for clarity. O_TEXTBOXSection 1: What is already known on this topic? O_LIA significant number of people continue to describe symptoms long after the acute phase of covid-19 is over, so called long covid. C_LIO_LIThere is no case definition for long covid, which appears to be a heterogeneous condition with an uncertain prevalence. C_LI Section 2: What this study adds O_LIThis living systematic review provides a comprehensive summary of the published evidence on persistent symptoms of covid-19 and will be regularly updated. C_LIO_LIThe breadth of reported symptoms suggests a complex, heterogeneous condition affecting both hospitalised patients and those managed in the community. C_LIO_LIHowever, the current evidence base of the clinical spectrum of long covid is of limited quality and is vulnerable to biases. C_LIO_LIOur review identifies those areas where further long covid research is critically needed. C_LI C_TEXTBOX