ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Around 10% of people infected by SARS-COV-2 report symptoms that persist longer than 3 months. Little has been reported about sex differences in symptoms and clustering over time of non-hospitalised patients in primary care settings. METHODS: This is a descriptive study of a cohort of mainly non-hospitalized patients with a persistence of symptoms longer than 3 months from the clinical onset in co-creation with the Long Covid Catalan affected group using an online survey. Recruitment was from March 2020 to June 2021. Exclusion criteria were being admitted to an ICU, < 18 years of age and not living in Catalonia. We focused on 117 symptoms gathered in 18 groups and performed cluster analysis over the first 21 days of infection, at 22-60 days, and ≥ 3 months. RESULTS: We analysed responses of 905 participants (80.3% women). Median time between symptom onset and the questionnaire response date was 8.7 months. General symptoms (as fatigue) were the most prevalent with no differences by sex, age, or wave although its frequency decreased over time (from 91.8 to 78.3%). Dermatological (52.1% in women, 28.5% in men), olfactory (34.9% women, 20.9% men) and neurocognitive symptoms (70.1% women, 55.8% men) showed the greatest differences by sex. Cluster analysis showed five clusters with a predominance of Taste & smell (24.9%) and Multisystemic clusters (26.5%) at baseline and _Multisystemic (34.59%) and Heterogeneous (24.0%) at ≥3 months. The Multisystemic cluster was more prevalent in men. The Menstrual cluster was the most stable over time, while most transitions occurred from the Heterogeneous cluster to the Multisystemic cluster and from Taste & smell to Heterogeneous. CONCLUSIONS: General symptoms were the most prevalent in both sexes at three-time cut-off points. Major sex differences were observed in dermatological, olfactory and neurocognitive symptoms. The increase of the Heterogeneous cluster might suggest an adaptation to symptoms or a non-specific evolution of the condition which can hinder its detection at medical appointments. A carefully symptom collection and patients' participation in research may generate useful knowledge about Long Covid presentation in primary care settings.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Female , Male , COVID-19/epidemiology , Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome , Retrospective Studies , Spain/epidemiology , Primary Health CareABSTRACT
Since countries and their institutions began to feel overwhelmed by COVID-19, it has not been surprising to hear the complaints, ailments and discomforts of millions of people who have experienced significant emotional and material losses. It has been a cluster of factors that have been crossed by biological, socioeconomic and cultural phenomena, interconnected with each other, and that have become structural. Despite the broad contribution of the scientific field to the study of this phenomenon, the different disciplines in general, and those from the Social Sciences in particular, have had little participation and opportunities for communication and research. A good indicator to assess the priorities regarding the generation of knowledge is to observe the number of relevant publications and total citations, among which biomedical ones stand outâ. This invites a tremendously necessary debate since, considering the complexity of the phenomenon, we wonder why it has not been proportional to the collaboration of the different disciplines when considering its approach.
Desde que los países y sus instituciones comenzaron a sentirse sobrepasados por la COVID-19, no ha sorprendido escuchar las quejas, las dolencias y los malestares de millones de personas que han experimentado importantes pérdidas emocionales y materiales. Ha sido un cúmulo de factores que han estado atravesados por fenómenos biológicos, socioeconómicos y culturales, interconectados entre sí, y que se han transformado en estructurales. A pesar de la amplia contribución del ámbito científico para el estudio de este fenómeno, las diferentes disciplinas en general, y las procedentes de las Ciencias Sociales en particular, han tenido escasa participación y oportunidades de comunicación e investigación. Un buen indicador para valorar las prioridades que se tiene respecto a la generación del conocimiento es observar el número de publicaciones relevantes y de citas totales, entre las cuales sobresalen las biomédicasâ. Esto invita a un debate tremendamente necesario ya que, si se considera la complejidad del fenómeno, nos preguntamos por qué éste no ha sido proporcional a la colaboración de las diferentes disciplinas a la hora de plantear su abordaje.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Humans , SARS-CoV-2 , Spain , SyndemicABSTRACT
La participación pública en los proyectos de investigación es un ámbito emergente en España y en los países latinoamericanos. Existen cinco tipos de proyectos según el grado de implicación que las personas participantes tienen en los procesos: contributivos, colaborativos, cocreados, contractuales e independientes. Para promover la participación pública en los equipos de investigación del ámbito de la salud es necesario redefinir sus prácticas y sus competencias. Para ello, puede ser útil formularse preguntas en las diferentes fases de la investigación, así como desarrollar estrategias que incluyan audiencias que cuenten con menos canales de participación en pro de favorecer la equidad en salud. Esta forma de hacer ciencia permite reunir experiencia y experticia priorizando y adecuando la investigación a las necesidades de la población, lo que aumenta su capacidad transformadora y el impacto social de sus resultados
Public participation in research projects is an emerging area in Spain and Latin American countries. There are five types of projects according to the degree of involvement that the participants have in the processes: contributory, collaborative, co-created, contractual and independent. In order to promote public participation in health research teams, their practices and competencies need to be redefined. To this end, it may be useful to ask questions in the different phases of the research, as well as to develop strategies that include audiences that have fewer channels of participation in favour of favouring equity in health. This way of doing science allows gathering experience and expertise prioritizing and adapting the research to the needs of the population, which increases its transforming capacity and the social impact of its results
Subject(s)
Humans , Biomedical Research/methods , Research Subjects/classification , Patient Participation/trends , Research Design/trends , Health Equity/trends , Health Policy/trends , Social Determinants of Health/trends , Community Participation/trendsABSTRACT
Public participation in research projects is an emerging area in Spain and Latin American countries. There are five types of projects according to the degree of involvement that the participants have in the processes: contributory, collaborative, co-created, contractual and independent. In order to promote public participation in health research teams, their practices and competencies need to be redefined. To this end, it may be useful to ask questions in the different phases of the research, as well as to develop strategies that include audiences that have fewer channels of participation in favour of favouring equity in health. This way of doing science allows gathering experience and expertise prioritizing and adapting the research to the needs of the population, which increases its transforming capacity and the social impact of its results.
