Health-related quality of life and coping strategies adopted by COVID-19 survivors: A nationwide cross-sectional study in Bangladesh

  1. Mohammad Anwar Hossain
  2. Rubayet Shafin
  3. Md. Shahoriar Ahmed
  4. Md. Shohag Rana
  5. Lori Maria Walton
  6. Veena Raigangar
  7. Tasnim Ara
  8. Md. Aminul Hoque Rasel
  9. Mohammad Sohrab Hossain
  10. Md. Feroz Kabir
  11. Mir Raihanul Islam
  12. Md. Nazmul Hasan
  13. Md. Delowar Hossain
  14. Farjana Sharmin Rumana
  15. Iqbal Kabir Jahid

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

This study aims to investigate the health-related quality of life and coping strategies among COVID-19 survivors in Bangladesh.

Methods

This is a cross-sectional study of 2198 adult, COVID-19 survivors living in Bangladesh. Data were collected from previously diagnosed COVID-19 participants (confirmed by an RT-PCR test) via door-to-door interviews in the eight different divisions in Bangladesh. For data collection, Bengali-translated Brief COPE inventory and WHO Brief Quality of Life (WHO-QoLBREF) questionnaires were used. The data collection period was from October 2020 to March 2021.

Results

Males 72.38% (1591) were more affected by COVID-19 than females 27.62% (607). Age showed significant correlations (p<0.005) with physical, psychological and social relationships, whereas gender showed only a significant correlation with physical health (p<0.001). Marital status, occupation, living area, and co-morbidities showed significant co-relation with all four domains of QoL (p<0.001). Education and affected family members showed significant correlation with physical and social relationship (p<0.001). However, smoking habit showed a significant correlation with both social relationship and environment (p<0.001). Age and marital status showed a significant correlation with avoidant coping strategies (p<0.001); whereas gender and co-morbidities showed a significant correlation with problem-focused coping strategies (p<0.001). Educational qualification, occupation and living area showed significant correlation with all three coping strategies(p<0.001).

Conclusion

Survivors of COVID-19 showed mixed types of coping strategies; however, the predominant coping strategy was avoidant coping, followed by problem-focused coping, with emotion-focused coping reported as the least prevalent. Marital status, occupation, living area and co-morbidities showed a greater effect on QoL in all participants. This study represents the real scenario of nationwide health-associated quality of life and coping strategies during and beyond the Delta pandemic.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0277694
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2022.04.30.22274514: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    EthicsConsent: A pilot study was conducted with 20 participants, with face-to-face data collection and was undertaken at a convenient scheduled time for participants, after taking written consent from the participants.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power AnalysisSample size: The sample size calculation was performed using “EPI INFO” software version 7.4.2.0 developed by the Center for Disease Control in the US.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Sample size: The sample size calculation was performed using “EPI INFO” software version 7.4.2.0 developed by the Center for Disease Control in the US.
    INFO”
    suggested: None
    Statistical Testing: Data were analyzed using the Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20.0 [23].
    SPSS
    suggested: (SPSS, RRID:SCR_002865)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    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.
    • No funding statement was detected.
    • 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 10.1101/2022.04.30.22274514v1 on medRxiv