Strategies and lessons learned from a longitudinal study to maximize recruitment in the midst of a global pandemic

Associations of mood symptoms and body mass among individuals with COVID-19

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has had a significant impact on mental health, and individuals with certain preexisting morbidities-such as obesity-may have disproportionately experienced pandemic-related stress. We aimed to examine whether being obese or overweight was associated with worse mood and trauma among those infected with COVID-19.

Methods

Data were collected as part of a larger longitudinal survey study (n = 591) examining the psychological impact of COVID-19. Complete baseline data for those who reported testing positive from April 2020 through June 2021 were examined.

Results and conclusions

Body mass index was correlated with depression (r = 0.13, P < .01) and generalized anxiety disorder (r = 0.10, P = .02), but not with posttraumatic stress disorder (r = 0.06, P = .16). Multivariable analyses revealed that body mass index was no longer a unique predictor, except for those with a body mass index >40 kg/m2, suggesting that other sociodemographic factors, not obesity, were driving mood symptoms for those infected with COVID-19.

The Fatigue and Altered Cognition Scale among SARS-CoV-2 Survivors: Psychometric Properties and Item Correlations with Depression and Anxiety Symptoms

Background/Objectives: This study examined the psychometric properties of the Fatigue and Altered Cognition Scale (FACs) among adult COVID-19 survivors and its unique ability to assess symptomology not accounted for by measures of depression and anxiety. Methods: COVID-19 survivors completed an online survey that included the FACs, a measure of brain fog and central fatigue with 20 items rated on a digital-analog scale. Useable data from 559 participants were analyzed to test the two-factor structure of the FACs, test for measurement invariance by sex and device was used to complete the survey (hand-held, computer), and item correlations with symptoms of depression and anxiety were examined. Results: The two-factor structure of the FACs replicated, supporting the separate assessments of brain fog and fatigue, χ2(164) = 1028.363, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.934, TLI = 0.923, RMSEA = 0.097, SRMR = 0.053. The FACs exhibited invariance at the scalar level, indicating item and factor integrity regardless of sex and device type. Using a correlation > 0.70 as a criterion (i.e., indicating more than 50% shared variance between two items), items on the FACs (assessing fatigue and lack of energy) were highly correlated with feeling tired or having little energy on the depression measure. No other items correlated with any anxiety symptom larger than 0.70. Conclusions: The FACs appears to be a psychometrically sound and efficient measure for use with COVID-19 survivors, assessing symptoms of brain fog and central fatigue that are not attributable to symptoms assessed by established measures of depression and anxiety.

Barriers and facilitators for recruiting and retaining male participants into longitudinal health research: a systematic review

BACKGROUND

Successfully recruiting male participants to complete a healthcare related study is important for healthcare study completion and to advance our clinical knowledgebase. To date, most research studies have examined the barriers and facilitators of female participants in longitudinal healthcare-related studies with limited information available about the needs of males in longitudinal research. This systematic review examines the unique barriers and facilitators to male recruitment across longitudinal healthcare-related research studies.

METHODS

Following PRIMSA guidelines, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL and Web of Science databases were systematically searched using the terms recruitment and/or retention, facilitators and/or barriers and longitudinal studies from 1900 to 2023 which contained separate data on males aged 17-59 years. Health studies or interventions were defined longitudinal if they were greater than or equal to 12 weeks in duration with 3 separate data collection visits.

RESULTS

Twenty-four articles published from 1976-2023 met the criteria. One-third of the studies had a predominantly male sample and four studies recruited only male participants. Males appear disinterested towards participation in health research, however this lack of enthusiasm can be overcome by clear, non-directive communication, and studies that support the participants interests. Facilitating factors are diverse and may require substantial time from research teams.

CONCLUSIONS

Future research should focus on the specific impact of these factors across the spectrum of longitudinal health-related studies. Based on the findings of this systematic review, researchers from longitudinal health-related clinical trials are encouraged to consider male-specific recruitment strategies to ensure successful recruitment and retention in their studies.

REGISTRATION

This systemic review is registered with the PROSPERO database (CRD42021254696).

The Coronavirus Impact Scale: Construction, Validation, and Comparisons in Diverse Clinical Samples

Objective

This report is of the construction and initial psychometric properties of the Coronavirus Impact Scale in multiple large and diverse samples of families with children and adolescents. The scale was established to capture the impact of the coronavirus pandemic during its first wave. Differences in impact between samples and internal structure within samples were assessed.

Method

A total of 572 caregivers of children and adolescents or expecting mothers in diverse clinical and research settings completed the Coronavirus Impact Scale. Samples differed in regard to developmental stage, background, inpatient/outpatient status, and primary research or clinical setting. Model free methods were used to measure the scale's internal structure and to determine a scoring method. Differences between samples in specific item responses were measured by multivariate ordinal regression.

Results

The Coronavirus Impact Scale demonstrated good internal consistency in a variety of clinical and research populations. Across the groups studied, single, immigrant, predominantly Latinx mothers of young children reported the greatest impact of the pandemic, with noteworthy effects on food access and finances reported. Individuals receiving outpatient or inpatient care reported greater impacts on health care access. Elevated scores on the Coronavirus Impact Scale were positively associated with measures of caregiver anxiety and both caregiver- and child-reported stress at a moderate effect size.

Conclusion

The Coronavirus Impact Scale is a publicly available scale with adequate psychometric properties for use in measuring the impact of the coronavirus pandemic in diverse populations.

Attitudes and personal beliefs about the COVID-19 vaccine among people with COVID-19: a mixed-methods analysis

Background

Little research is available regarding vaccination attitudes among those recently diagnosed with COVID-19. This is important to investigate, particularly among those experiencing mild-to-moderate illness, given the ongoing need to improve uptake of both initial vaccine series and booster doses, and the divergent ways such an experience could impact attitudes.

Methods

From September 3 – November 12, 2021, all patients enrolled in Baylor Scott & White’s “COVID-19 Digital Care Journey for Home Monitoring” were invited to participate in an online survey that included questions about vaccination status and attitudes/opinions regarding COVID-19 and the COVID-19 vaccines. Following an item asking about accordance of COVID-19 vaccination with religious/personal beliefs, participants were asked to describe those beliefs and how they relate to taking/not taking the vaccine.

Results

Of 8,075 patients age ≥ 18 years diagnosed with COVID-19 and invited to join the survey during the study period, 3242 (40.2%) were fully vaccinated. In contrast, among the 149 who completed the questionnaire, 95(63.8%) reported full vaccination. Responses differed significantly between vaccination groups. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that COVID-19 is a major public health problem, the vaccines are safe and effective, and their decision to vaccinate included considering community benefit. The unvaccinated group responded neutrally to most questions addressing safety and public health aspects of the vaccine, while strongly disagreeing with statements regarding vaccine effectiveness and other preventative public health measures. The vaccinated group strongly agreed that taking the vaccine accorded with their religious/personal beliefs, while the unvaccinated group was neutral. In qualitative analysis of the free text responses “risk perception/calculation” and “no impact” of religious/personal beliefs on vaccination decisions were frequent themes/subthemes in both groups, but beliefs related to the “greater good” were a strong driver among the vaccinated, while statements emphasizing “individual choice” were a third frequent theme for the unvaccinated.

Conclusion

Our results show that two of the three factors that drive vaccine hesitancy (complacency, and lack of confidence in the vaccines) are present among unvaccinated adults recently diagnosed with COVID-19. They also show that beliefs emphasizing the importance of the greater good promote public health participation.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12889-022-14335-x.