What is the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the Health-Related Quality of Life of individuals with mild symptoms (or non-hospitalised): A rapid review

Llinos Haf Spencer, Annie Hendry, Abraham Makanjuola, Jacob Davies, Kalpa Pisavadia, Dyfrig Hughes, Deb Fitzsimmons, Clare Wilkinson, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Adrian Edwards
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.09.22279642

Abstract

The COVID-19 morbidities model has been widely used since 2020 to support Test and Trace and assess the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme. The current iteration of the Long COVID model covers several morbidities associated with COVID-19, which are essential to plan for elective care in the future and identify which services to prioritise. However, there are uncertainties in the model around the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of COVID-19, which is primarily based on data for severe COVID disease or hospitalised patients at present. The COVID-19 morbidities model requires updating to address gaps and reflect the latest HRQoL evidence.

The aim of this rapid review was to provide updated HRQoL evidence for the COVID-19 morbidities model to better support decision-making in relation to COVID-19 policy.

Thirteen primary studies were identified. People who had an initial mild COVID-19 illness or were not treated in hospital can have a decreased HRQoL post-COVID. However, the extent, severity, and duration of this is not consistent. The evidence on the long-term impact of a mild COVID-19 infection on HRQoL is uncertain.

Implications for policy and practice include:

  1. An initial mild COVID-19 illness can lead to a reduction in HRQoL and impaired mental health, but there is evidence indicating that patients can show significant recovery up to normal levels after one year.

  2. Employers should be aware that employees may have prolonged experiences of impaired mental health, including anxiety, depression, and fatigue, following COVID-19 disease, even if their initial disease was mild (not hospitalised).

  3. Public health agencies should make patients with mild COVID-19 disease aware of the potential for ongoing symptoms and ways to mitigate and manage them through raised awareness and education.

  4. Health Boards should review their provision of long-COVID services in relation to the extent of impacts identified.

  5. Better quality studies that report longitudinal follow-up data on HRQoL for a representative cohort of patients who have had mild COVID-19 are required.

Funding statement The Bangor Institute for Health and Medical Research, Bangor University was funded for this work by the Wales Covid-19 Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health & Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government.

Review conducted by Bangor Institute for Health and Medical Research Rapid Review Team

Review Team

  • Dr Llinos Haf Spencer, l.spencer{at}bangor.ac.uk

  • Dr Annie Hendry, a.hendry{at}bangor.ac.uk

  • Mr Abraham Makanjuola, a.makanjuola{at}bangor.ac.uk

  • Mr Jacob Davies, j.davies{at}bangor.ac.uk

  • Miss Kalpa Pisavadia, kalpa.pisavadia{at}bangor.ac.uk

  • Professor Dyfrig Hughes, d.a.hughes{at}bangor.ac.uk

  • Professor Deb Fitzsimmons, d.fitzsimmons{at}swansea.ac.uk

  • Professor Clare Wilkinson, c.wilkinson{at}bangor.ac.uk

  • Professor Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, r.t.edwards{at}bangor.ac.uk

Review submitted to the WCEC in July 2022

Rapid Review report issued by the WCEC in August 2022

WCEC Team Adrian Edwards, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper and Micaela Gal involved in drafting, Topline Summary, editing etc.

This review should be cited as RR00040. Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre. What is the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the Health-Related Quality of Life of individuals with mild symptoms (or non-hospitalised): A rapid review. July 2022.

Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors, not necessarily Health and Care Research Wales. The WCEC and authors of this work declare that they have no conflict of interest.

What is a Rapid Review?Our rapid reviews use a variation of the systematic review approach, abbreviating or omitting some components to generate the evidence to inform stakeholders promptly whilst maintaining attention to bias. They follow the methodological recommendations and minimum standards for conducting and reporting rapid reviews, including a structured protocol, systematic search, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal, and evidence synthesis to answer a specific question and identify key research gaps. They take 1-2 months, depending on the breadth and complexity of the research topic/ question(s), extent of the evidence base, and type of analysis required for synthesis.

Who is this summary for?The Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), who have previously created a COVID-19 morbidities model to support the COVID-19 pandemic response. It will also inform Welsh Government policy through work conducted by the Technical Advisory Cell.

Background / Aim of Rapid Review The COVID-19 morbidities model has been widely used since 2020 to support Test and Trace and assess the cost-effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccination programme. The current iteration of the Long COVID model covers several morbidities associated with COVID-19, which are essential to plan for elective care in the future and identify which services to prioritise. However, there are uncertainties in the model around the long-term health-related quality of life (HRQoL) impact of COVID-19, which is primarily based on data for severe COVID disease or hospitalised patients at present. The COVID-19 morbidities model requires updating to address gaps and reflect the latest HRQoL evidence.

The aim of this Rapid Review was to provide updated HRQoL evidence for the COVID-19 morbidities model to better support decision-making in relation to COVID-19 policy. The latest edition of the model was published by the DHSC team in December 2020.

The review focused on studies reporting on the long-term impact on HRQoL of patients who had experienced mild symptoms or were not treated in hospital. Inclusion was limited to studies that used validated HRQoL measures, which can be mapped onto EuroQol Quality of Life Measure – 5 dimensions (EQ-5D) and conducted in OECD countries. Two existing systematic reviews were used to identify relevant primary studies published before January 2021, with new searches focusing on the period between January 2021 to June 2022.

Key Findings Thirteen primary studies were identified.

Extent of the evidence base

  • Most studies (n=8) were cross-sectional surveys or reported on HRQoL outcomes at a single time point post-COVID (n=2). Only three studies (one of which was a case report) provided longitudinal follow-up data, which included changes from baseline or reported data at multiple time points.

  • Only two studies reported on HRQoL beyond six months follow-up: One study reported data at three months, six months, and twelve months follow-up and one study measured outcomes at six to eleven months. Five studies measured HRQoL at three months post COVID-19, one at four months, and one at five months. Three studies reported data at two months or less post COVID-19.

  • Two studies (one was a case report) focused solely on patients with mild infection, whilst the remaining eleven studies also included patients with moderate or severe/critical COVID-19 illness. Three studies included participants categorised as non-hospitalised or hospitalised patients. twelve studies recruited patients attending outpatients or health care settings; one study recruited a general Swedish population who had a previous COVID-19 infection.

  • The studies were conducted in Turkey (n=2), Denmark (n=1), Sweden (n=1), USA (n=2), Chile (n=1), Ukraine (n=1), Mexico (n=1), Austria (n=2), and The Netherlands (n=2). No UK-based studies were identified.

Recency of the evidence base

Summary of results

  • People who had an initial mild COVID-19 illness or were not treated in hospital can have a decreased HRQoL post-COVID. However, the extent, severity, and duration of this is not consistent.

Best evidence available

  • Han et al., (2022) recruited outpatients who had mild initial COVID-19 disease and measured HRQoL at six to eleven months follow-up; 436/2092 (21%) outpatients responded to the survey. The findings indicated that the burden of persistent symptoms was significantly associated with poorer long-term health status, poorer quality of life, and psychological distress.

  • Siegerink et al., (2021) measured HRQoL at three months, six months, and twelve months follow-up, and recruited patients presenting at hospital with COVID-19, a proportion of whom were not hospitalised. At three months follow-up, 22% (n=9) of the non-hospitalised group reported abnormal Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) scores (cut-off at 16). After six months, this decreased to 16% (for n=4), and 14.8% at twelve months (n=4).

  • Labarca et al., (2021) reported a change from baseline in percentage satisfaction with HRQoL. They found 50% of the (n=18) ‘mild’ (non-hospitalised) COVID-19 patients reported an individual change in HRQoL, categorised as a change of ≥ 10% on a Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) at four months follow-up.

Policy Implications

  • An initial mild COVID-19 illness can lead to a reduction in HRQoL and impaired mental health, but there is evidence indicating that patients can show significant recovery up to normal levels after one year.

  • Employers should be aware that employees may have prolonged experiences of impaired mental health, including anxiety, depression, and fatigue, following COVID-19 disease, even if their initial disease was ‘mild’ (not hospitalised).

  • Public health agencies should make patients with mild COVID-19 disease aware of the potential for ongoing symptoms and ways to mitigate and manage them through raised awareness and education.

  • Health Boards should review their provision of long-COVID services in relation to the extent of impacts identified.

  • Better quality studies that report longitudinal follow-up data on HRQoL for a representative cohort of patients who have had mild COVID-19 are required.

Strength of Evidence

  • The evidence on the long-term impact of a mild COVID-19 infection on HRQoL is uncertain.

1. BACKGROUND

COVID-19 is a coronavirus affecting individuals worldwide since the first few cases were observed in Wuhan, China in 2019 (Xiong et al., 2021). Since that time, evidence has mounted that as well as causing illness in the acute phase, some symptoms are long-lasting. There is a growing evidence-base documenting the long-term effects of COVID-19 on physical health, mental health, and quality of life (Han et al., 2022; Malik et al., 2022; Walle-Hansen et al., 2021). As part of this global evidence-base, a Rapid Evidence Summary was conducted leading to the Rapid Review question of ‘What is the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the Health-Related Quality of Life of individuals with mild symptoms (non-hospitalised)?’ This question was suggested by stakeholders from the Welsh Government and the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), who worked with a COVID-19 morbidities model to support the COVID-19 pandemic response. The model has been widely used since 2020 to support the Test and Trace programme and inform Welsh Government policy. In June 2022, it was recognised by the stakeholder group that the parameters of the COVID-19 morbidities model needed to be updated to address gaps and reflect more recent evidence in areas, including:

  1. Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) as measured by standardised outcome measures in the acute phases of COVID-19 disease

  2. HRQoL of individuals hospitalised versus those with mild disease

  3. HRQoL in children and young people

  4. HRQoL in different ethnic groups

A Rapid Evidence Summary conducted in May 2022 showed a persistent gap in the evidence regarding HRQoL of children and young people, ethnic minority groups, and those who had mild initial COVID-19 disease. Following the stakeholder meeting (held on 1st June 2022), a decision was made to focus on the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the HRQoL of those who had mild initial symptoms of the disease (not treated in hospital). Common symptoms of COVID-19 include fatigue, cough, shortness of breath, headache, anosmia, fever/chills, chest pain, rhinorrhoea, muscle aches, ageusia, sore throat, nausea/vomiting, diarrhoea and altered consciousness/confusion (Darley et al., 2021). A pre-print from 2022 suggested that 15% of individuals with mild symptoms of COVID-19 disease had not fully recovered 12 months after the initial acute infection (Hanson et al., 2022). It is estimated that 1.8 million people living in private households in the UK (2.8% of the population) were experiencing self-reported ‘long-COVID’ as of 3rd April 2022 (Office for National Statistics, 2022). Long-COVID is a term used to describe signs and symptoms in adults or children that develop or persist after acute COVID-19 lasting more than four weeks after a confirmed or suspected case of COVID-19 (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence et al., 2022).

HRQoL measures are standardised validated questionnaires completed by patients to provide information on their perceived functional well-being and health status. These questionnaires can address various aspects of self-reported health, including symptoms, QoL, functionality, and physical, mental, and social well-being (Bowling, 2017). HRQoL measures play an important role in increasing patient engagement, improving health systems, and ensuring that clinical care and research are person-centred (Bray et al., 2020). Health Technology Assessment organisations, such as the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE), typically request that economic evaluations should calculate the incremental cost per quality adjusted life year (QALY) (Dakin et al., 2018; Whitehead & Ali, 2010). In order to calculate QALYs, preference-based measures are needed. In the absence of a preference-based measure, many HRQoL tools can be mapped onto the EQ-5D-5L (EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018) or the SF-6D (Brazier et al., 2002) to predict utility scores to generate QALYs (Dakin et al., 2018).

1.1 Purpose of this review

The aim of this Rapid Review is to provide updated evidence for the COVID-19 morbidities model regarding mild COVID-19 symptoms and HRQoL to better support decision-making in relation to COVID-19 policy.

2. RESULTS

2.1 Overview of the Evidence Base

This Rapid Review extends the findings from two previous systematic reviews (SR) published in 2021 and 2022 (Bourmistrova et al., 2022; Poudel et al., 2021). These reviews were used as the starting point for identifying relevant primary studies. Literature searches for new studies published between January 2021 and June 2022 were also conducted. Two of the included studies were found in the Bourmistrova et al. (2022) and Poudel et al. (2021) SRs (Tanriverdi et al., 2022; Van Den Borst et al., 2021).

The searches for relevant studies, and eligibility criteria used, are described in Section 5 of this report (Rapid Review methods). HRQoL measures are described in more detail in Appendix 1. Resources Searched for this Rapid Review are indicated in Appendix 2. A ‘map’ of the mild initial COVID-19 and HRQoL evidence is presented in Appendix 3. Appendix 4 presents the quality appraisals for the existing reviews and includes primary studies.

Twelve descriptive cohort studies and one case report study met the inclusion criteria (for this current Rapid Review (Akova & Gedikli, 2022; Attauabi et al., 2022; Bileviciute-Ljungar et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Labarca et al., 2021; Matviyets & Matiukha, 2022; Mayer et al., 2021; Ordinola Navarro et al., 2021; Rass et al., 2021, 2022; Siegerink et al., 2021; Tanriverdi et al., 2022; Van Den Borst et al., 2021). These primary studies, summarised in Table 1 and in Section 6.2, will be discussed in terms of date of data collection and the HRQoL findings.

View this table:
Table 1 Overview of included primary papers from 2021 and 2022 including Health-Related Quality of Life measure and main results

The studies reported in this review are grouped according to the year the study was conducted, this is sometimes different to year of publication because of the length of the publication process. Different variants of COVID-19 have been circulating since December 2019. For example, the Delta variant in 2019 was different in symptomology from the Omicron BA.5 variant circulating in the Summer of 2022. This purposeful separation of publications according to year could allow stakeholders to vary data in the model depending on the year the data was collected. The data extraction tables (see Section 6) highlight when the data was collected for each of the included studies.

Studies conducted in 2020

Five of the included studies reported data collected between 2019 and 2020 (González et al., 2021; Ordinola Navarro et al., 2021; Rass et al., 2021; Siegerink et al., 2021; Van Den Borst et al., 2021). One of the included studies was a case report (Mayer et al., 2021). These cohort studies reported on HRQoL measured by a variety of outcome measures, including EQ-5D, SF-36 and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), all of which could be mapped against the EQ-5D with individual-level data. The HRQoL results of the studies are reported below according to the measure used.

EQ-5D

A cohort study based in healthcare settings in Mexico investigated the HRQoL of patients (n=115) who were categorised as being mild, severe and critically ill with COVID-19 in 2020 (Ordinola Navarro et al., 2021). It was found that even those with mild symptoms showed a decrease in QoL as measured by the EQ-5D Visual Analogue Scale (VAS). Scores on the main EQ-5D-5L measure showed that mobility, anxiety, depression, and usual activities were affected more than self-care. The median score of the EQ-5D-5L visual analogue scale pre-COVID-19 was 95 (IQR; 90–100), and after was 85 (IQR; 75–90), P < 0.001 for the sample of 115, however, EQ-5D-5L scores were not presented according to COVID-19 severity.

A prospective cohort study was conducted in the USA in 2020 (Han et al., 2022) six to eleven months after COVID-19 disease. This study investigated the HRQoL of 213 outpatients who had mild initial COVID-19 disease. The authors measured HRQoL status using the EQ-5D-VAS (mean score = 0.63; confidence interval 95%: 0.57–0.69), and the EQ-5D-5L (mean score: 0.65; confidence interval 95%: 0.59–0.72) around 6 to 11 months after acute infection.

A case report of a female who had mild initial COVID-19 in the USA found that her HRQoL scores measured by EQ-5D VAS and PTSD scores did not improve following eight weeks of physiotherapy (Mayer et al., 2021). This was despite improvements in physical functioning. This case report was published in 2021, but the dates of data collection were unclear.

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)

A prospective observational cohort study was conducted during the first wave of COVID-19 in 2020 in The Netherlands with patients who presented at hospital with COVID-19 but were not hospitalised (Siegerink et al., 2021). HRQoL was measured using the HADS questionnaire. At three months follow-up, 22% (n=9) of the non-hospitalised cohort reported abnormal total HADS scores (cut-off at 16). After 6 months, this decreased to 16% (n=4), and after 12 months fell further to 14.8% (n=4). The authors noted that although COVID-19 correlated with decreased HRQoL and impaired mental health, this study provided evidence that individuals recovered to pre-acute COVID-19 levels after one year.

SF-12 and SF-36 outcome measures

A study conducted in the Netherlands in 2020 investigated the health and QoL status of patients (n=124) hospitalised and not hospitalised for COVID-19 (Van Den Borst et al., 2021). Twenty-seven patients had mild initial COVID-19. For the group as a whole, the six weeks post COVID-19 health status was generally poor, particularly in the domains of functional impairment (64%), fatigue (69%), and QoL (72%) as measured using the SF-36 and the Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument (NCSI) (Peters et al., 2009). Although some sub-group analyses were conducted, these were not clearly presented in terms of mild, moderate, and severe cases. Patients with mild disease referred by GPs to hospital were younger than patients with moderate-to-critical disease and were predominantly female. The authors noted that longer follow-up studies are warranted to explain pathways and to find predictors of complicated long-term trajectories of recovery.

An Austrian study conducted in 2020 included participants (n=135) with COVID-19 recruited three months after presenting at hospital (Rass et al., 2021). A proportion of these participants (n=32; 24%) were treated as outpatients and thus classified as non-hospitalised. At the three-months follow-up, depression was assessed using the HADS-D measure. A HADS-D score of >7 (0-7 = ‘normal’) was identified in one outpatient (out of 32). A HADS-D score of >10 (8-10 = ‘borderline abnormal’ and 11-21 = ‘abnormal) was identified in one other outpatient (out of 32). Anxiety was assessed using the HADS-A measure. Five outpatients scored 8-10 on this measure (indicating mild anxiety), and one outpatient gave a score over 10 (indicating a clinically meaningful anxiety disorder). QoL was assessed using the SF-36 questionnaire. Three outpatients were identified as being impaired (with total SF-36 scores below 40).

The SF-12 and the HADS measures were used in a study conducted in hospital and community settings in Chile with 60 patients from April to June 2020 (Labarca et al., 2021), four months following initial COVID-19 disease. Of the 60 patients, 18 had mild COVID-19 disease, 17 had moderate COVID-19 disease, and 25 had severe COVID-19 disease. The authors found that patients diagnosed with COVID-19 presented a high prevalence of symptoms and affected anxiety and depression status (as measured by the HADS) regardless of initial infection severity. For the (n=18) mild COVID-19 patients, there was a mean SF-12 physical domain score at the four-month follow-up of (50.3). Compared to mean scores of (37) and (41.2) for the moderate and severe patients, respectively, with a higher score reflecting a better quality of life. A Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) was used to assess personal change in HRQoL, with a range of 0% (worst HRQoL) and 100% (best HRQoL). Fifty percent of the patients with initial mild COVID-19 disease (n=18) reported an individual change in HRQoL. A score change of ≥ 10% was indicative of a change in HRQoL as measured by the SF-12.

Studies conducted in 2021

Seven of the included primary papers were cohort studies reporting data collected in 2021 or published in 2022, where the date of data collection was not reported (Akova & Gedikli, 2022; Attauabi et al., 2022; Bileviciute-Ljungar et al., 2022; Han et al., 2022; Matviyets & Matiukha, 2022; Rass et al., 2022; Tanriverdi et al., 2022). The EQ-5D measure was used in three of the studies described below.

EQ-5D

A study from Turkey conducted in March 2021 included 151 adults from at least 12 weeks following positive PCR result for COVID-19 (and not treated in hospital) (Akova & Gedikli, 2022). The authors found that individuals with six or more post-COVID-19 symptoms had more problems with mobility (p=0.012), usual activities (p=0.023), pain/discomfort (p=0.001), and anxiety/depression (p=0.002) compared to individuals with fewer post-COVID-19 symptoms as measured by EQ-5D (Akova & Gedikli, 2022). The mean score was also lower in individuals with six or more post-COVID-19 symptoms than in those who had no symptoms (p=0.002). The authors noted that patient follow-up should be given importance, especially for females and the elderly, as the more symptoms that persist, the lower the HRQoL.

A survey study conducted in Sweden between April and August 2021 with 100 patients with mild illness found that 99 patients reported abnormal values on the EQ-5D and 100 patients reported abnormal values on the EQ-5D-VAS (Bileviciute-Ljungar et al., 2022) 12 weeks after acute infection. The mean for EQ-5D was 0.51 (s.d. = 0.2), and the range was 0.14-1.00. On the EQ-5D-VAS, the mean was 42.6 (s.d. = 19.5), and the range was 10-83. Population norms in Sweden for the EQ-5D is 0.85, and the EQ-5D-VAS is 85 for people between 35 and 54 years old (Szende et al., 2014). Pain was often reported by post-COVID-19 sufferers despite a mild initial infection.

A study from Denmark (Attauabi et al., 2022) investigating n=222 patients with inflammatory bowel symptoms, including Ulcerative Colitis (UC) and Crohn’s Disease (CD), found no difference in HRQoL as measured by the EQ-5D-5L among patients with UC and CD or patients with mild, adverse, or severe COVID-19, after 5.1 months. The major limitation of this study is that those with pain were perhaps more inclined to complete a questionnaire on the topic.

Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS)

A Turkish study conducted in February 2021 with a small sample of adults (n=25) who had mild initial COVID-19 diagnosis (Tanriverdi et al., 2022) found that anxiety, depression, and poor sleep quality were observed in 33.3%, 29.2%, and 50% of the participants as measured by the HADS and Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index, respectively, at least 12 weeks from COVID-19 diagnosis. The authors found that poor sleep quality was the main negative consequence of having had a past COVID-19 diagnosis.

2.2 Bottom line results for HRQoL and mild initial COVID-19

Studies relating to HRQoL and mild initial COVID-19 were published in 2021 and 2022 based on data from 2020 to June 2022. Many studies found that mild COVID-19 was associated with decreased quality of life, and some studies showed no difference in quality of life between those with severe and mild COVID-19. Notably, some of the studies included in this Rapid Review showed that patients with previous symptoms of COVID-19 improved in terms of HRQoL over time post initial infection.

3. DISCUSSION

3.1 Summary of the findings

This RR was built on the foundations of the Systematic Reviews by Bourmistrova et al. (2022) and Poudel et al. (2021).

In this review, thirteen of the included studies involved individuals who had mild initial COVID-19 disease (or not treated in hospital) and whose quality of life was measured by a validated HRQoL outcome measure. The cohort studies such as Labarca et al (2021) suggest that mild COVID-19 infection may influence future health.

3.2 Limitations of the available evidence

All of the included evidence was collected during different time points of the COVID-19 pandemic (between January 2020 and June 2022), when different variants were prevalent in different countries worldwide. As such, this research provides an overview of the HRQoL of those patients with mild forms of the different variants. Therefore, for example, the authors cannot be certain that the mild form of Omicron was different to the mild form of Delta in terms of recovery after mild COVID-19 disease. Moreover, the vaccination programmes did not start simultaneously in every country; therefore, some earlier studies would include unvaccinated cohorts, and some later studies may include mostly or partly vaccinated cohorts. Also, there has been some variance in the administration of the rollout of vaccination programmes worldwide.

This review found very limited evidence on the long-term impact of mild COVID-19 and HRQoL. Only three studies (one of which was a case report: Mayer et al., 2021) provided longitudinal follow-up data, which included change from baseline (Labarca et al., 2021; Mayer et al., 2021) or data on multiple time points (Siegerink et al., 2021). The other included studies provided some evidence (which could provide a utility at this point in time) as there was a lack of longitudinal studies with repeated measures. This kind of cross-sectional evidence was included because comparisons could be made to general population value sets. Few studies limited inclusion to people with mild COVID-19, with many also including patients with severe illness or hospitalised patients, with outcome data for specific sub-populations being inadequately reported. Most studies recruited patients with a previous mild illness attending outpatient clinics or used postal questionnaires, which will likely result in a higher proportion of patients with adverse impact of COVID-19 being included.

There was limited information regarding how the mild initial COVID-19 illness affected different population groups. Although most studies focused on adults, age and ethnicity were not the focus of most of the studies. Therefore, sub-group analyses addressing HRQoL effects of mild COVID-19 in members of minority groups are not available.

3.3 Implications for policy and practice

  • An initial mild COVID-19 infection can lead to a decrease in HRQoL and impaired mental health, but there is evidence indicating that patients can show important recovery up to normal levels after one year.

  • Employers should be aware that employees may have prolonged experiences of impaired mental health, including anxiety, depression and fatigue following COVID-19 disease, even if their initial disease was of mild severity.

  • Public health agencies should make patients with mild COVID-19 disease aware of the potential for ongoing symptoms and ways to mitigate and manage them through raised awareness and education.

  • Health Boards should review their provision of long-COVID services in relation to the extent of impacts identified.

3.4 Strengths and limitations of this Rapid Review

Strength of the rapid review

  • This Rapid Review was conducted in June 2022 and covers the first waves of the COVID-19 pandemic, including data from January 2020 to June 2022.

  • The focus of this Rapid Review was the long-term HRQoL of patients who tested positive for COVID-19 and experienced mild symptoms. All studies included reported validated HRQoL measures (see Appendix 1) that can be mapped onto EQ-5D.

  • All the included studies were from peer-reviewed journals.

Limitation of the rapid review

  • An important limitation of this review is the lack of available studies reporting longitudinal follow-up data for patients who have had a mild initial illness or not treated in hospital.

  • There is an acknowledgement that the availability of studies including individuals with mild initial COVID-19 could restrict the number of studies available to include in a Rapid Review.

  • People with mild initial COVID-19 disease may not have sought treatment or attended any healthcare services due to the nature of their illness and being asked to stay at home. They may also have chosen not to test for COVID-19, and in the first wave of COVID-19 there were no readily available methods of testing for a positive diagnosis. Therefore, it would be difficult to identify and recruit patients with mild infection outside of healthcare settings, with risk of selection bias in study recruitment.

  • This Rapid Review only included studies from Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries. However, data were also available from, for example, Brazil (Barreto et al., 2021), China (Chen et al., 2022), India (Maheshwari et al., 2021) and Romania (Giurgi-Oncu et al., 2021). These may also have been of some relevance but were excluded due to being outside OECD countries. It is possible that these studies may report good quality data that may be of interest to researchers in the future.

  • The rapid review used existing systematic reviews to identify studies published before January 2021. This enabled us to complete the review in a timely way and avoid duplication and research waste. However, one of the existing reviews used to identify early studies (Bourmistrova et al., 2022) focused on evaluating the mental health impact of COVID-19 and did not cover other important HRQoL domains such as physical function. This means that some relevant early studies may have been missed, although we do not believe this to be the case. We were also more interested in studies published between 2021-2022 because the current DHSC COVID-19 Morbidities model is based on data up to December 2020.

Data Availability

All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors

5. RAPID REVIEW METHODS

5.1 Eligibility criteria

The eligibility criteria for the review is presented in Table 2 and is based on the Population, Intervention, Comparison and Outcome (PICO) framework (Schardt et al., 2007). The stakeholders for this rapid review were interested in the long-term HRQoL outcomes for individuals with mild COVID-19 disease or not treated in hospital. The HRQoL scores were intended for use as part of the modelling work and to develop health utility scores to calculate QALYs. The outcomes of interest here, therefore, included the use of standardised HRQoL measures that can be used to develop a health utility score, including but not limited to EQ-5D (EuroQol Research Foundation, 2018) and SF-36 (Ware, 2000). A full list of HRQoL measures that can be mapped to EQ-5D can be found in Dakin et al., (2018) and Whitehead and Ali (2010) (Dakin et al., 2018; Whitehead & Ali, 2010).

View this table:
Table 2: Eligibility Criteria

Initially, this review only intended to include longitudinal studies; however, due to a lack of studies reporting longitudinal data with repeated measures, inclusion criteria were updated to include cross-sectional studies reporting data beyond two weeks following acute disease.

5.2 Literature search

5.2.1 Incorporating studies from existing reviews

Two published systematic reviews conducted in 2021 were used as the starting point for the literature search (Bourmistrova et al., 2022; Poudel et al., 2021). Studies included in the two existing reviews were screened for inclusion in this Rapid Review. New (database) searches were then conducted to identify primary studies published from January 2021 through to June 2022

5.2.2 Evidence sources

Key evidence sources include:

  1. ASSIA

  2. CINAHL

  3. Cochrane Library

  4. EmBASE

  5. Medline

  6. PsycInfo

Key sources were searched for papers published between 1st January 2021 and 13th June 2022. The searches were limited to published research in the English or Welsh languages. The scope outlined for this search is to keep the review concise and deliverable within the timeframe expected for a Rapid Review.

5.2.3 Search strategy

The search strategy for the Rapid Review is outlined below. This search strategy was created for Medline and adapted for the other databases.

Search strategy for Medline

  1. Patients/

  2. (patient*).ti,ab

  3. (case* or sufferer* or victim* or infect*).ti,ab

  4. 1 OR 2 OR 3

  5. ((non or no*) adj2 (hospital* or admission or admittance or admitted or admit*)).ti,ab,kw

  6. (mild or moderate or non-serious or untreated or non-treated).ti,ab,kw

  7. 5 or 6

  8. COVID-19/

  9. (COVID).ti,ab

  10. (coronavirus* or coronovirus* or coronaviri* or 2019-nCoV or 2019nCoV or nCoV2019 or nCoV-2019 or covid-19* or covid19* or ncov* or n-cov* or HCoV* or SARS-CoV-2 or SARSCoV-2 or SARSCov2 or SARS-CoV2 or severe acute respiratory syndrome).ti,ab

  11. 8 or 9 or 10

  12. Quality of life/

  13. ((health or health related) adj2 (quality or quality of life)).ti,ab,kw

  14. 12 or 13

  15. 4 and 7 and 11 and 14

5.2.4 Reference management

The Covidence systematic review software was used to store and manage citations. Duplicates were removed in Covidence (Veritas Health Innovation, 2021).

The citations were screened on title and abstract by three members of the core review team. Full-text articles were then retrieved and further assessed for inclusion or exclusion. Any queries regarding inclusion/exclusion were resolved by discussion between members of the review team.

5.3 Data extraction

The data were extracted from the included studies using a pre-defined data extraction tool developed to capture all relevant data (see section 6.2). Extracted data included study details such as author, year, setting, aim, design, population, and sample size. The data extraction included data specific to the review question, type of study, method of analysis, key findings, and author conclusions.

Included papers were distributed among the core review team for data extraction. A sample of extracted studies was checked against the papers for accuracy by the review lead. A proportion of the papers (10%) were double extracted to check for discrepancies between reviewers.

5.4 Assessment of methodological quality

Quality appraisal was carried out by members of the core review team using the JBI critical appraisal tools. This includes the JBI systematic reviews and research syntheses checklist (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2017), JBI case reports checklist (Munn et al., 2021), and JBI cohort studies checklist (Joanna Briggs Institute, 2021).

Members of the review team choose the most appropriate JBI critical appraisal tool. A quarter of critical appraisals were checked by a second reviewer. Discrepancies arising during the critical appraisal process were discussed until the review team reached an agreement.

5.5 Synthesis

Study characteristics and results are presented in Section 6.2, and a short narrative synthesis was developed to bring the evidence together (Mishler, 1995). Quantitative data from the included studies have been summarised and presented in the results section.

5.6 Assessment of body of evidence

All included primary papers were from peer reviewed journals.

6. EVIDENCE

6.1 Study selection flow chart

Figure

The study selection flow chart is shown as a PRISMA flow chart (Page et al., 2021).

From: Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021;372:n71. doi: 10.1136/bmj.n71. For more information, visit: http://www.prisma-statement.org/

6.2 Data extraction tables

See Appendix 5 for the quality appraisal tables.

View this table:
Table A.6.1

Secondary research – data extraction

View this table:
Table A.6.2

Primary studies – data extraction

6.3 Information available on request

All the papers referenced in this Rapid Review are available from the relevant journals.

7. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

7.1 Conflicts of interest

The authors declare they have no conflicts of interest to report.

7.3 Author contributions

Contribution to writing and critical editing of the report; LHS, AH, KP, JD, AM, CW, RTE, DH, DF.

7.4 Disclaimer

The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors, not necessarily Health and Care Research Wales. The WCEC and authors of this work declare that they have no conflict of interest.

8. ABOUT THE WALES COVID-19 EVIDENCE CENTRE (WCEC)

The WCEC integrates with worldwide efforts to synthesise and mobilise knowledge from research.

We operate with a core team as part of Health and Care Research Wales, are hosted in the Wales Centre for Primary and Emergency Care Research (PRIME), and are led by Professor Adrian Edwards of Cardiff University.

The core team of the centre works closely with collaborating partners inHealth Technology Wales, Wales Centre for Evidence-Based Care, Specialist Unit for Review Evidence centre, SAIL Databank, Bangor Institute for Health & Medical Research/ Health and Care Economics Cymru, and the Public Health Wales Observatory.

Together we aim to provide around 50 reviews per year, answering the priority questions for policy and practice in Wales as we meet the demands of the pandemic and its impacts.

Director

Professor Adrian Edwards

Contact Email

WC19EC{at}cardiff.ac.uk

7.2 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank expert stakeholders from the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC), including, Mina Mahmoudzadeh (Research analyst in the COVID-19 Health Protection Analysis Team at DHSC), Gbemi Babalola (Economic Adviser at Department of Health and Social Care), Claire Bradshaw (Analyst at Department for Health and Social Care) and Marianne Scholes (Senior Analyst at Department for Health and Social Care). From the Welsh Government’s Technical Advisory Cell, Dr Brendan Collins (Senior Health Economist). We thank Professor Adrian Edwards, Dr Ruth Lewis and Dr Alison Cooper (Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre) for providing support to the review team. Dr Catherine Lawrence is also thanked for lending her professional knowledge in ensuring the factual correctness of the details and for proofreading the report.

APPENDICES

View this table:
Appendix 1: Description of the Health-Related Quality of Life (HRQoL) measures
View this table:
Appendix 2: Resources searched during Rapid Review Searching

A single list of resources has been developed for guiding and documenting the sources searched as part of a Rapid Review. All ‘core’ resources should be searched, but other resources may be considered if appropriate to the topic, or time allows.

For those resources used, record the search strategies used below the table.

View this table:
Appendix 3: Map of Mild COVID-19 and HRQoL by type of evidence

Map of the evidence COVID-19 and Health Related Quality of Life (HRQoL)

Appendix 4: Quality appraisal tables

Members of the review team chose the most appropriate JBI critical appraisal tool to quality appraise the included studies. (See Tables A.4.1-A.4.3 below).

View this table:
Table A.4.1 JBI cohort checklist
View this table:
Table A.4.2 JBI Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses Checklist
View this table:
Table A.4.3 JBI Critical Appraisal Checklist for Case Reports

Abbreviations

Acronym
Full Description
CD
Crohn’s Disease
COVID-19
Coronavirus disease-19
EQ-5D
EuroQol Quality of Life Measure – 5 dimensions
GP
General Practitioner
HADS
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale
HADS-A
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Anxiety
HADS-D
Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale - Depression
HRQoL
Health-Related Quality of Life
IBS
Inflammatory Bowel Diseases
Mild COVID-19
COVID-19 disease without hospitalisation (non-severe COVID-19)
NHS
National Health Service
OECD
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
ONS
Office for National Statistics
PTSD
Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder
PHQ-9
Patient Health Questionnaire-9
QoL
Quality of life
SD
Standard deviation (from the mean)
SF-12
Short Form-12
SF-36
Short Form-36
UC
Ulcerative Colitis
VAS
Visual Analogue Scale
WCEC
Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre

4. REFERENCES

  1. ↵
    Akova, I., & Gedikli, M.. (2022). Determination of Ongoing Symptoms, Quality of Life Levels, and Risk Factors in Post-COVID-19 Patients. Erciyes Medical Journal, 44(2), 208–215. https://doi.org/10.14744/etd.2021.99825
    OpenUrl
  2. ↵
    Attauabi, M., Dahlerup, J. F., Poulsen, A., Hansen, M. R., Vester-Andersen, M. K., Eraslan, S., Prahm, A. P., Pedersen, N., Larsen, L., Jess, T., Neumann, A., Haderslev, K. V, Molazahi, A., Lødrup, A. B., Glerup, H., Oppfeldt, A. M., Jensen, M. D., Theede, K., Kiszka-Kanowitz, M., … Burisch, J. (2022). The impact of COVID-19 on quality of life among patients with inflammatory bowel diseases – A Danish prospective population-based cohort study. Journal of Crohn’s and Colitis, 16(Supplement_1), i562–i565. https://doi.org/10.1093/ecco-jcc/jjab232.771
    OpenUrl
  3. ↵
    Barreto, A.., Duarte, L.., Cerqueria-Silva, T., Filho, M. A.., Camelier, A., Tavores, N.., Barral-Netto, M., Baoventura, V., Lima, M. C.., & CPC Study Group. (2021). Post-Acute COVID Syndrome, the Aftermath of Mild to Severe COVID-19 in Brazilian Patients. MedRxiv Preprint. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.07.21258520v1.full.pdf
  4. ↵
    Bileviciute-Ljungar, I., Norrefalk, J. R., & Borg, K. (2022). Pain Burden in Post-COVID-19 Syndrome following Mild COVID-19 Infection. Journal of Clinical Medicine, 11(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm11030771
  5. ↵
    Bourmistrova, N. W., Solomon, T., Braude, P., Strawbridge, R., & Carter, B. (2022). Long-term effects of COVID-19 on mental health: A systematic review. Journal of Affective Disorders, 299(January), 118–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jad.2021.11.031
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  6. ↵
    Bowling, A. (2017). Measuring Health: A Review of Subjective Health, Well-being and Quality of Life Measurement Scales (4th ed.). Open University Press.
  7. ↵
    Bray, N., Spencer, L. H., & Edwards, R. T. (2020). Preference-based measures of health-related quality of life in congenital mobility impairment : a systematic review of validity and responsiveness. Health Economics Review. https://healtheconomicsreview.biomedcentral.com/track/pdf/10.1186/s13561-020-00270-3
  8. ↵
    Brazier, J.., Roberts, J., & Deverill, M. (2002). The Estimation of a Preference-Based Measure of Health from the SF-36. Journal of Health Economics, 21(2), 271–292. https://eprints.whiterose.ac.uk/474/1/brazierje10.pdf
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  9. ↵
    Chen, H., Shi, H., Liu, X., Sun, T., Wu, J., & Liu, Z. (2022). Effect of Pulmonary Rehabilitation for Patients With Post-COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis. Frontiers in Medicine, 9(February), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2022.837420
    OpenUrl
  10. ↵
    Dakin, H., Abel, L., Burns, R., & Yang, Y. (2018). Review and critical appraisal of studies mapping from quality of life or clinical measures to EQ-5D: An online database and application of the MAPS statement. Health and Quality of Life Outcomes, 16(1), 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12955-018-0857-3
    OpenUrl
  11. ↵
    Darley, D. R., Dore, G. J., Cysique, L., Wilhelm, K. A., Andresen, D., Tonga, K., Stone, E., Byrne, A., Plit, M., Masters, J., Tang, H., Brew, B., Cunningham, P., Kelleher, A., & Matthews, G. V. (2021). Persistent symptoms up to four months after community and hospital-managed SARS-CoV-2 infection. Medical Journal of Australia, 214(6), 279–280. https://doi.org/10.5694/mja2.50963
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  12. EuroQol Group. (1990). EQ-5D-3L Health Questionnaire: English version for the UK.
  13. ↵
    EuroQol Research Foundation. (2018). User GuideEQ-5D-3L User Guide. https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides
  14. EuroQol Research Foundation. (2019). EQ-5D-5L User Guide v3.0. Computer, September, 169–232. https://euroqol.org/publications/user-guides
  15. ↵
    Giurgi-Oncu, C., Tudoran, C., Pop, G. N., Bredicean, C., Pescariu, S. A., Giurgiuca, A., & Tudoran, M. (2021). Cardiovascular abnormalities and mental health difficulties result in a reduced quality of life in the post-acute covid-19 syndrome. Brain Sciences, 11(11), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.3390/brainsci11111456
    OpenUrl
  16. ↵
    González, J., Benítez, I. D., Carmona, P., Santisteve, S., Monge, A., Moncusí-Moix, A., Gort-Paniello, C., Pinilla, L., Carratalá, A., Zuil, M., Ferrer, R., Ceccato, A., Fernández, L., Motos, A., Riera, J., Menéndez, R., Garcia-Gasulla, D., Peñuelas, O., Bermejo-Martin, J. F., … Trenado, J. (2021). Pulmonary Function and Radiologic Features in Survivors of Critical COVID-19: A 3-Month Prospective Cohort. Chest, 160(1), 187–198. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chest.2021.02.062
    OpenUrl
  17. ↵
    Han, J. H., Womack, K. N., Tenforde, M. W., Files, D. C., Gibbs, K. W., Shapiro, N. I., Prekker, M. E., Erickson, H. L., Steingrub, J. S., Qadir, N., Khan, A., Hough, C. L., Johnson, N. J., Ely, E. W., Rice, T. W., Casey, J. D., Lindsell, C. J., Gong, M. N., Srinivasan, V., … Self, W. H. (2022). Associations between persistent symptoms after mild COVID-19 and long-term health status, quality of life, and psychological distress. Influenza and Other Respiratory Viruses, February, 680–689. https://doi.org/10.1111/irv.12980
  18. ↵
    Hanson, S., Abbafati, C., Aerts, J. G., Al-Aly, Z., & Ashbaugh, C. (2022). A global systematic analysis of the occurrence, severity, and recovery pattern of long COVID in 2020 and 2021. MedRxic Preprint. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.26.22275532v1.full.pdf
  19. ↵
    Joanna Briggs Institute. (2017). Checklist for Systematic Reviews and Research Syntheses. The Joanna Briggs Institute. http://joannabriggs.org/research/critical-appraisal-tools.htmlwww.joannabriggs.org www.joannabriggs.org
  20. ↵
    Joanna Briggs Institute. (2021). Checklist for quasi-experimental studies (non-randomised experimental studies). https://jbi.global/critical-appraisal-tools
  21. Kroenke, K., & Spitzer, R. L. (2002). The PHQ-9: A new depression diagnostic and severity measure. Psychiatric Annals, 32(9), 509–515. https://doi.org/10.3928/0048-5713-20020901-06
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  22. ↵
    Labarca, G., Henríquez-Beltrán, M., Lastra, J., Enos, D., Llerena, F., Cigarroa, I., Lamperti, L., Ormazabal, V., Ramirez, C., Espejo, E., Canales, N., Fuentes, F., Horta, G., Fernandez-Bussy, S., & Nova-Lamperti, E. (2021). Analysis of clinical symptoms, radiological changes and pulmonary function data 4 months after COVID-19. Clinical Respiratory Journal, 15(9), 992–1002. https://doi.org/10.1111/crj.13403
    OpenUrl
  23. ↵
    Maheshwari, A., Varshney, M., Gupta, K., & Bajpai, M. (2021). Psychological assessment and lived experiences of recovered COVID-19 patients who presented for convalescent plasma donation. Transfusion Clinique et Biologique, 28(3), 254–257. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tracli.2021.04.008
    OpenUrl
  24. ↵
    Malik, P., Patel, K., Pinto, C., Jaiswal, R., Tirupathi, R., Pillai, S., & Patel, U. (2022). Postacute COVID-19 syndrome (PCS) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL)—A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Medical Virology, 94(1), 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1002/jmv.27309
    OpenUrl
  25. ↵
    Matviyets, L. G., & Matiukha, L. F. (2022). Analysis of Mental Health in Patients, Who Have Had Sars Cov-2 At the Primary Level of Health Care. Wiadomosci Lekarskie, 75(1), 39– 46. https://doi.org/10.36740/wlek202201107
    OpenUrl
  26. ↵
    Mayer, K. P., Steele, A. K., Soper, M. K., Branton, J. D., Lusby, M. L., Kalema, A. G., Dupont-Versteegden, E. E., & Montgomery-Yates, A. A. (2021). Physical Therapy Management of an Individual With Post-COVID Syndrome: A Case Report. Physical Therapy and Rehabilitation Journal, 101(6), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1093/ptj/pzab098
    OpenUrl
  27. ↵
    Mishler, E. G. (1995). Models of narrative analysis: A typology. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 5(2), 87–123.
    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
  28. ↵
    Munn, Z., Barker, T., Moola, S., Tufanaru, C., Stern, C., McArthur, A., Stephenson, M., & Aromataris, E. (2021). Methodological quality of case series studies. JBI Evidence Synthesis. https://doi.org/doi:10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00099
  29. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, Practitioners, R. C. of G., & Scotland, H. I. (2022). COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19. In NICE Guidelines (Issue March). https://www.nice.org.uk/terms-and-
  30. ↵
    Office for National Statistics. (2022). Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK. Office for National Statistics, April, 2–7. https://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/healthandsocialcare/conditionsanddiseases/bulletins/prevalenceofongoingsymptomsfollowingcoronaviruscovid19infectionintheuk/1april2021
  31. ↵
    Ordinola Navarro, A., Cervantes-Bojalil, J., Cobos Quevedo, O. de J., Avila Martínez, A., Hernández-Jiménez, C. A., Pérez Álvarez, E., González Gil, A., Peralta Amaro, A. L., Vera-Lastra, O., & Lopez Luis, B. A. (2021). Decreased quality of life and spirometric alterations even after mild-moderate COVID-19. Respiratory Medicine, 181(April). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rmed.2021.106391
  32. ↵
    Page, M., McKenzie, J., Bossuyt, P., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T., & Mulrow, C. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 10(89). https://doi.org/doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01626-4
  33. ↵
    Peters, J. B., Daudey, L., Heijdra, Y. F., Molema, J., Dekhuijzen, P. N. R., & Vercoulen, J. H. (2009). Development of a battery of instruments for detailed measurement of health status in patients with COPD in routine care: The Nijmegen Clinical Screening Instrument. Quality of Life Research, 18(7), 901–912. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-009-9502-2
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  34. ↵
    Poudel, A. N., Zhu, S., Cooper, N., Roderick, P., Alwan, N., Tarrant, C., Ziauddeen, N., & Yao, G. L. (2021). Impact of Covid-19 on health-related quality of life of patients: A structured review. In PLoS ONE (Vol. 16, Issue 10 October). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0259164
  35. ↵
    Rass, V., Beer, R., Schiefecker, A. J., Kofler, M., Lindner, A., Mahlknecht, P., Heim, B., Limmert, V., Sahanic, S., Pizzini, A., Sonnweber, T., Tancevski, I., Scherfler, C., Zamarian, L., Bellmann-Weiler, R., Weiss, G., Djamshidian, A., Kiechl, S., Seppi, K., … Helbok, R. (2021). Neurological outcome and quality of life 3 months after COVID-19: A prospective observational cohort study. European Journal of Neurology, 28(10), 3348– 3359. https://doi.org/10.1111/ene.14803
    OpenUrl
  36. ↵
    Rass, V., Ianosi, B. A., Zamarian, L., Beer, R., Sahanic, S., Lindner, A., Kofler, M., Schiefecker, A. J., Mahlknecht, P., Heim, B., Limmert, V., Sonnweber, T., Pizzini, A., Tymoszuk, P., Scherfler, C., Djamshidian, A., Kiechl, S., Tancevski, I., Seppi, K., … Helbok, R. (2022). Factors associated with impaired quality of life three months after being diagnosed with COVID-19. Quality of Life Research, 31(5), 1401–1414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11136-021-02998-9
    OpenUrl
  37. ↵
    Schardt, C., Adams, M. B., Owens, T., Keitz, S., & Fontelo, P. (2007). Utilization of the PICO framework to improve searching PubMed for clinical questions. BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making, 7, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1472-6947-7-16
    OpenUrl
  38. ↵
    Siegerink, S., Nijpels, M., Albers, S., Jurgens, F., Petta, F.., Samwel, L., Vanhommerig, J., Bresser, P., de Regt, M., Broekman, B., & Brinkman, K. (2021). Health-related quality of life in COVID-19 survivors after 12 months, a prospective cohort study. OFID, 8(1), 25–26.
    OpenUrl
  39. ↵
    Szende, A., Janssen, B., & Cabases, J. (2014). Self-Reported Population Health: An International Perspective based on EQ-5D. Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf03271524
  40. ↵
    Tanriverdi, A., Savci, S., Kahraman, B. O., & Ozpelit, E. (2022). Extrapulmonary features of post-COVID-19 patients: muscle function, physical activity, mood, and sleep quality. Irish Journal of Medical Science, 191(3), 969–975. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11845-021-02667-3
    OpenUrl
  41. ↵
    Van Den Borst, B., Peters, J. B., Brink, M., Schoon, Y., Bleeker-Rovers, C. P., Schers, H., Van Hees, H. W. H., Van Helvoort, H., Van Den Boogaard, M., Van Der Hoeven, H., Reijers, M. H., Prokop, M., Vercoulen, J., & Van Den Heuvel, M. (2021). Comprehensive Health Assessment 3 Months after Recovery from Acute Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19). Clinical Infectious Diseases, 73(5), E1089–E1098. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/ciaa1750
    OpenUrl
  42. ↵
    Veritas Health Innovation. (2021). Covidence systematic review software (Available at http://www.covidence.org).
  43. ↵
    Walle-Hansen, M. M., Ranhoff, A. H., Mellingsæter, M., Wang-Hansen, M. S., & Myrstad, M. (2021). Health-related quality of life, functional decline, and long-term mortality in older patients following hospitalisation due to COVID-19. BMC Geriatrics, 21(1), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12877-021-02140-x
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  44. ↵
  45. ↵
    Whitehead, S. J., & Ali, S. (2010). Health outcomes in economic evaluation: The QALY and utilities. British Medical Bulletin, 96(1), 5–21. https://doi.org/10.1093/bmb/ldq033
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  46. ↵
    Xiong, Q., Xu, M., Li, J., Liu, Y., Zhang, J., Xu, Y., & Dong, W. (2021). Clinical sequelae of COVID-19 survivors in Wuhan, China: a single-centre longitudinal study. Clinical Microbiology and Infection, 27(1), 89–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cmi.2020.09.023
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  47. Zigmond, A.., & Snaith, R.. (1983). The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale. Acta Psychiatrica Scandinavica, 67, 361–370. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqu024
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
Back to top
Posted September 09, 2022.
Download PDF
Data/Code
Email
What is the long-term impact of COVID-19 on the Health-Related Quality of Life of individuals with mild symptoms (or non-hospitalised): A rapid review
Llinos Haf Spencer, Annie Hendry, Abraham Makanjuola, Jacob Davies, Kalpa Pisavadia, Dyfrig Hughes, Deb Fitzsimmons, Clare Wilkinson, Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper, Adrian Edwards
medRxiv 2022.09.09.22279642; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2022.09.09.22279642
Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools

Subject Area