Perceived discrimination as a modifier of health, disease, and medicine: empirical data from the COVID-19 pandemic

  1. Moriah E. Thomason
  2. Cassandra L. Hendrix
  3. Denise Werchan
  4. Natalie H. Brito

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Increasing reports of long-term symptoms following COVID-19 infection, even among mild cases, necessitate systematic investigation into the prevalence and type of lasting illness. Notably, there is limited data regarding the influence of social determinants of health, like perceived discrimination and economic stress, that may exacerbate COVID-19 health risks. Here, 1,584 recovered COVID-19 patients that experienced mild to severe forms of disease provided detailed medical and psychosocial information. Path analyses examined hypothesized associations between discrimination, illness severity, and lasting symptoms. Secondary analyses evaluated sex differences, timing of infection, and impact of prior mental health problems. Post hoc logistic regressions tested social determinants hypothesized to predict neurological, cognitive, or mood symptoms. 70.6% of patients reported presence of one or more lasting symptom after recovery. 19.4% and 25.1% of patients reported lasting mood or cognitive/memory problems. Perceived discrimination predicted increased illness severity and increased lasting symptom count, even when adjusting for sociodemographic factors and mental/physical health comorbidities. This effect was specific to stress related to discrimination, not to general stress levels. Further, patient perceptions regarding quality of medical care influenced these relationships. Finally, illness early in the pandemic is associated with more severe illness and more frequent lasting complaints. Lasting symptoms after recovery from COVID-19 are highly prevalent and neural systems are significantly impacted. Importantly, psychosocial factors (perceived discrimination and perceived SES) can exacerbate individual health risk. This study provides actionable directions for improved health outcomes by establishing that sociodemographic risk and medical care influence near and long-ranging health outcomes. All data from this study have been made publicly available.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1038/s41398-022-02047-0
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.07.16.21260638: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsIRB: Participants: The research protocol for this study was approved by the NYU Langone Institutional Review Board (IRB).
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    No key resources detected.

    Results from OddPub: Thank you for sharing your data.

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: An explicit section about the limitations of the techniques employed in this study was not found. We encourage authors to address study limitations.

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    Results from scite Reference Check: We found no unreliable references.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2021.07.16.21260638 on medRxiv