For Publishers
DiscoveryMetadataPeer reviewHostingPublishing
For Researchers
JoinPublishReviewCollect
Register
Blog
About
Search
Advanced search
My ScienceOpen
Search
For Publishers
For Researchers
Blog
About
0
views
35
references
 Top references
cited by
1
    
0 reviews
 Review
0
comments
 Comment
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
1 collections
    0
    shares
      289
      similar
       All similar
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: not found

      Impact of COVID-19 on outcomes after trauma the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on functional and mental health outcomes after trauma

      research-article

      Read this article at

      ScienceOpenPublisherPMC
      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          The COVID-19 pandemic has led to decreased access to care and social isolation, which have the potential for negative psychophysical effects. We examine the impact of the pandemic on physical and mental health outcomes after trauma.

          Methods

          Patients in a prospective study were included. The cohort injured during the pandemic was compared to a cohort injured before the pandemic. We performed regression analyses to evaluate the association between the COVID-19 pandemic and physical and mental health outcomes.

          Results

          1,398 patients were included. In adjusted analysis, patients injured during the pandemic scored significantly worse on the SF-12 physical composite score (OR 2.21; [95% CI 0.69–3.72]; P = 0.004) and were more likely to screen positive for depression (OR 1.46; [1.02–2.09]; P = 0.03) and anxiety (OR 1.56; [1.08–2.26]; P = 0.02). There was no significant difference in functional outcomes.

          Conclusions

          Patients injured during the COVID-19 pandemic had worse mental health outcomes but not physical health outcomes.

          Related collections

          Most cited references35

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Research electronic data capture (REDCap)--a metadata-driven methodology and workflow process for providing translational research informatics support.

          Paul A. Harris, Robert Taylor, Robert Thielke … (2009)
          Research electronic data capture (REDCap) is a novel workflow methodology and software solution designed for rapid development and deployment of electronic data capture tools to support clinical and translational research. We present: (1) a brief description of the REDCap metadata-driven software toolset; (2) detail concerning the capture and use of study-related metadata from scientific research teams; (3) measures of impact for REDCap; (4) details concerning a consortium network of domestic and international institutions collaborating on the project; and (5) strengths and limitations of the REDCap system. REDCap is currently supporting 286 translational research projects in a growing collaborative network including 27 active partner institutions.
          Article 0 comments Cited 10101 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            A 12-Item Short-Form Health Survey: construction of scales and preliminary tests of reliability and validity.

            J. Ware, M Kosinski, S Keller (1996)
            Regression methods were used to select and score 12 items from the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) to reproduce the Physical Component Summary and Mental Component Summary scales in the general US population (n=2,333). The resulting 12-item short-form (SF-12) achieved multiple R squares of 0.911 and 0.918 in predictions of the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and SF-36 Mental Component Summary scores, respectively. Scoring algorithms from the general population used to score 12-item versions of the two components (Physical Components Summary and Mental Component Summary) achieved R squares of 0.905 with the SF-36 Physical Component Summary and 0.938 with SF-36 Mental Component Summary when cross-validated in the Medical Outcomes Study. Test-retest (2-week)correlations of 0.89 and 0.76 were observed for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, respectively, in the general US population (n=232). Twenty cross-sectional and longitudinal tests of empirical validity previously published for the 36-item short-form scales and summary measures were replicated for the 12-item Physical Component Summary and the 12-item Mental Component Summary, including comparisons between patient groups known to differ or to change in terms of the presence and seriousness of physical and mental conditions, acute symptoms, age and aging, self-reported 1-year changes in health, and recovery for depression. In 14 validity tests involving physical criteria, relative validity estimates for the 12-item Physical Component Summary ranged from 0.43 to 0.93 (median=0.67) in comparison with the best 36-item short-form scale. Relative validity estimates for the 12-item Mental Component Summary in 6 tests involving mental criteria ranged from 0.60 to 107 (median=0.97) in relation to the best 36-item short-form scale. Average scores for the 2 summary measures, and those for most scales in the 8-scale profile based on the 12-item short-form, closely mirrored those for the 36-item short-form, although standard errors were nearly always larger for the 12-item short-form.
            Article 0 comments Cited 1406 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Validation and standardization of the Generalized Anxiety Disorder Screener (GAD-7) in the general population.

              Bernd Löwe, Oliver Decker, Stefanie H. Müller … (2008)
              The 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Scale (GAD-7) is a practical self-report anxiety questionnaire that proved valid in primary care. However, the GAD-7 was not yet validated in the general population and thus far, normative data are not available. To investigate reliability, construct validity, and factorial validity of the GAD-7 in the general population and to generate normative data. Nationally representative face-to-face household survey conducted in Germany between May 5 and June 8, 2006. Five thousand thirty subjects (53.6% female) with a mean age (SD) of 48.4 (18.0) years. The survey questionnaire included the GAD-7, the 2-item depression module from the Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-2), the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale, and demographic characteristics. Confirmatory factor analyses substantiated the 1-dimensional structure of the GAD-7 and its factorial invariance for gender and age. Internal consistency was identical across all subgroups (alpha = 0.89). Intercorrelations with the PHQ-2 and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale were r = 0.64 (P < 0.001) and r = -0.43 (P < 0.001), respectively. As expected, women had significantly higher mean (SD) GAD-7 anxiety scores compared with men [3.2 (3.5) vs. 2.7 (3.2); P < 0.001]. Normative data for the GAD-7 were generated for both genders and different age levels. Approximately 5% of subjects had GAD-7 scores of 10 or greater, and 1% had GAD-7 scores of 15 or greater. Evidence supports reliability and validity of the GAD-7 as a measure of anxiety in the general population. The normative data provided in this study can be used to compare a subject's GAD-7 score with those determined from a general population reference group.
              Article 0 comments Cited 1051 times – based on 0 reviews     Review now
                Bookmark
                All references

                Author and article information

                Journal
                Journal ID (nlm-ta): Am J Surg
                Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Am J Surg
                Title: American Journal of Surgery
                Publisher: Elsevier Inc.
                ISSN (Print): 0002-9610
                ISSN (Electronic): 1879-1883
                Publication date PMC-release: 12 March 2022
                Publication date (Electronic): 12 March 2022
                Affiliations
                [a ]Boston University School of Medicine, 72 E. Concord St., Boston, MA, 02118, United States
                [b ]Center for Surgery and Public Health, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 1620 Tremont St., Boston, MA, 02120, United States
                [c ]Division of Trauma, Burn and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, Brigham and Women's Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 75 Francis St., Boston, MA, 02115, United States
                [d ]Division of Trauma, Emergency Surgery, and Surgical Critical Care, Department of Surgery, Massachusetts General Hospital, Harvard Medical School, 165 Cambridge St. Suite 810, Boston, MA, 02114, United States
                [e ]Department of Acute Care and Trauma Surgery, Boston Medical Center, Boston University School of Medicine, 840 Harrison St., Boston, MA, 02118, United States
                Author notes
                [∗ ]Corresponding author. Department of Acute Care and Trauma Surgery 840 Harrison Ave, Dowling 2 South Boston, MA, 02118, USA.
                [1]

                These authors contributed equally to this work.

                Article
                Publisher Item ID: S0002-9610(22)00160-X
                DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2022.03.012
                PMC ID: 8917903
                SO-VID: e1137224-a63f-48bb-8a7f-84a0474f9ccb
                Copyright © © 2022 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
                License:

                Since January 2020 Elsevier has created a COVID-19 resource centre with free information in English and Mandarin on the novel coronavirus COVID-19. The COVID-19 resource centre is hosted on Elsevier Connect, the company's public news and information website. Elsevier hereby grants permission to make all its COVID-19-related research that is available on the COVID-19 resource centre - including this research content - immediately available in PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, such as the WHO COVID database with rights for unrestricted research re-use and analyses in any form or by any means with acknowledgement of the original source. These permissions are granted for free by Elsevier for as long as the COVID-19 resource centre remains active.

                History
                Date received : 10 January 2022
                Date revision received : 25 February 2022
                Date accepted : 3 March 2022
                Categories
                Subject: Article

                Keywords: covid-19,functional outcomes,mental health,trauma
                Data availability:
                Keywords: covid-19, functional outcomes, mental health, trauma

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_

                Similar content289

                See all similar

                Cited by1

                See all cited by

                Most referenced authors645

                See all reference authors