Health-related quality of life of the adult COVID-19 patients following one-month illness experience since diagnosis: Findings of a cross-sectional study in Bangladesh

  1. Md. Ziaul Islam
  2. Baizid Khoorshid Riaz
  3. Syeda Sumaiya Efa
  4. Sharmin Farjana
  5. Fahad Mahmood

Reviewed by

Read the full article

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) stances an incredible impact on the quality of life and denigrates the physical and mental health of the patients. This cross-sectional study aimed to assess the health-related quality of life (HRQOL) of COVID-19 patients. We conducted this study at the National Institute of Preventive and Social Medicine (NIPSOM) of Bangladesh for the period of June to November 2020. All the COVID-19 patients diagnosed by real-time reverse transcriptase-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) assay in July 2020 formed the sampling frame. The study enrolled 1204 adult (aged >18 years) COVID-19 patients who completed a one-month duration of illness after being RT-PCR positive. The patients were interviewed with the CDC HRQOL-14 questionnaire to assess HRQOL. Data were collected by telephone interview on the 31 st day of being diagnosed and by reviewing medical records using a semi-structured questionnaire and checklist. Around two-thirds (72.3%) of the COVID-19 patients were males and a half (50.2%) were urban residents. In 29.8% of patients, the general health condition was not good. The mean (±SD) duration of physical illness and mental illness was 9.83(±7.09) and 7.97(±8.12) days, respectively. Most of the patients (87.0%) required help with personal care, and 47.8% required assistance with routine needs. The mean duration of ‘healthy days’ and ‘feeling very healthy’ was significantly lower in patients with increasing age, symptoms, and comorbidity. The mean duration of ‘usual activity limitation’, ‘health-related limited activity’, ‘feeling pain/worried’, and ‘not getting enough rest’ were significantly higher among patients’ having symptoms and comorbidity. ‘Not so good’ health condition was significantly higher in females (OR = 1.565, CI = 1.01–2.42) and those having a symptom (OR = 32.871, CI = 8.06–134.0) of COVID-19 and comorbidity (OR = 1.700, CI = 1.26–2.29). Mental distress was significantly higher among females (OR = 1.593, CI = 1.03–2.46) and those having a symptom (OR = 4.887, CI = 2.58–9.24). Special attention should be given to COVID-19 patients having symptoms and comorbidity to restore their general health, quality of life, and daily activities.

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.1371/journal.pone.0279032
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2021.02.19.21252073: (What is this?)

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

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementConsent: The study enrolled the patients having criteria such as; (i) completion of the one-month duration of illness; (ii) adults aged >18 years; (iii) capable of giving informed consent, and (iv) absence of severe illness.
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Statistical analysis: Data were analysed using SPSS STATISTICS (Version 25.0, IBM Statistical Product and Service Solutions, Armonk, NY, USA).
    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: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    The HRQOL comprised general health condition, physical illness, mental illness, and usual activity limitation following the experiences of the COVID-19 patients in the one-month clinical course of the disease since diagnosis. The study findings preserve potential policy implications to contrive expedient guidelines for effective clinical management of the patients to refurbish their quality of life and health condition. The study also conserves enormous academic and research implications to track the clinical course of the COVID-19 and its impacts on the physical and mental health of the patients. Accordingly, the study could contribute to the reform and redesign of the healthcare delivery system for the COVID-19 patients. In our study, around three-fourth of the COVID-19 patients were males, and the rest were females. This finding indicates that males were at a higher risk of being infected by COVID-19 than females. In this regard, other studies conducted in China [13] and Vietnam [14] revealed reverse findings where females were affected more than males. It may be due to the divergence of the socio-cultural context of Bangladesh, which is different from those countries. In the existing social and cultural frame of the country, males are more involved in outdoor activities than females. So, the chance of exposure and being affected are higher in males than the females. Around half of the COVID-19 patients were young adults (age group 30-49 years) and only 11.0% of the patien...

    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.

    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 10.1101/2021.02.19.21252073v1 on medRxiv