Next Article in Journal
Ambient Noise in Candidate Rooms for User-Operated Audiometry
Previous Article in Journal
ChatGPT Utility in Healthcare Education, Research, and Practice: Systematic Review on the Promising Perspectives and Valid Concerns
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

COVID-19′s Psychological Impact on Chronic Disease Patients Seeking Medical Care

1
Pharmaceutical Services Department, King Hamad University Hospital, Al Sayh 24343, Bahrain
2
Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faiyum Oncology Center, Fayium 63511, Egypt
3
Clinical Nutrition Department, Fayium Health Insurance Authority, Fayium 63511, Egypt
4
Clinical Pharmacy Department, College of Pharmacy, Al Ain University, Al Ain 64141, United Arab Emirates
5
Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef 62514, Egypt
6
Clinical Oncology Department, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef 62514, Egypt
7
Public Health and Community Medicine Department, Faculty of Medicine, Beni-Suef University, Beni-Suef 62514, Egypt
8
Clinical Pharmacy Department, Faculty of Pharmacy, October 6 University, Giza 12858, Egypt
9
Mental Health Department, Faculty of Education, Helwan University, Helwan 11795, Egypt
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Healthcare 2023, 11(6), 888; https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060888
Submission received: 25 January 2023 / Revised: 2 March 2023 / Accepted: 16 March 2023 / Published: 19 March 2023

Abstract

:
Background: The outbreak has harmed patients with multiple comorbidities and chronic conditions. The pandemic’s psychological impact is thought to change their routine of seeking medical care. Research Question or Hypothesis: During COVID-19, patients with chronic conditions may experience anxiety, depression, and stress, and their pattern of seeking medical care may change. Materials and Methods: In May 2021, a cross-sectional, web-based study of patients with chronic diseases was conducted. Eligible patients (1036) were assessed for psychological disorders, primarily depression, stress, and anxiety, using the DASS-21 scale, and their pattern of receiving medical care during COVID-19. Results: During the pandemic, 52.5% of the patients with chronic diseases were depressed, 57.9% were anxious, and 35.6% were stressed. Patients with chronic diseases who had moderate to severe depression (34.9% versus 45.1%, p = 0.001), moderate to severe anxiety (43.6% versus 53.8%, p = 0.001), or moderate to severe stress (14.9% versus 34.8%, p = 0.001) were significantly more likely to have no follow-up for their chronic conditions. Conclusions: Patients with chronic conditions experienced significant anxiety, depression, and stress during COVID-19, which changed their pattern of seeking medical care, and the majority of them did not receive follow-up for their chronic conditions.

1. Introduction

A cluster of pneumonia with an unknown origin was discovered in Wuhan City, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019. A new coronavirus (2019-nCoV) has been discovered as the cause of this illness [1]. The World Health Organization labeled the disease as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (WHO). The new coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) had spread fast throughout China and the world as of 18 February 2020, resulting in thousands of confirmed cases and deaths [2]. Chronic illnesses have a high death rate and are quite costly on healthcare infrastructure [3]. The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that in 2020, chronic diseases will account for 60% of all disease burden worldwide and 73% of all fatalities. In addition, developing nations will account for 79% of these deaths [4]. Previous studies demonstrate the high rates of stress, anxiety, and depression in chronic disease patients. It is advised that health professionals focus more on preventing and controlling these illnesses [5]. Studies reported more signs of anxiety and more stress in people with chronic disease than in those without any chronic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic [6]. Protecting older people’s mental health is crucial, especially for those who have chronic illnesses. In particular, in these difficult times that we are presently experiencing, it is necessary to provide these vulnerable segments of the population with psychological interventions and instruments aimed at enhancing their emotional and social states [7].
COVID-19 can infect persons of any age; however, older people are more susceptible to infection and have a higher fatality rate [8]. Various public health measures, such as quarantine and social isolation, have emerged in response to the COVID-19 pandemic [9]. Consequently, these measures had a negative impact on mental health, leading to a high prevalence of mental symptoms such as discomfort, anxiety, anger, loneliness, poor mood, sleeplessness, depression, and post-traumatic stress disorder [10]. These mental health side effects were attributed to stressors connected with quarantine, such as the length of the quarantine, the fear of illness or infecting others, a lack of information, and the stigma of discrimination [11]. Mental health symptoms vary from person to person depending on their thinking and sociability [12].
Patients with various comorbidities and chronic conditions such as hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, asthma, or COPD were severely affected by the COVID-19 pandemic [13], with the worst outcomes and mental health consequences (4). Patients may be avoiding medical attention out of fear of contracting the disease or as a result of quarantine [14]. This delay in obtaining treatment or omitting usual ongoing care can result in increased morbidity and mortality, which have not been considered in the assessment of the pandemic’s harm [15]. Many studies found patients with chronic conditions may be afraid to use their regular health-care services in order to reduce their chance of infection and the consequences that may result from a virus. The pandemic has significantly threatened the general public’s mental and physical health [16]. The limited access to healthcare created a huge mental burden, which results in psychological distress and anxiety disorders [17,18,19,20,21]. Patients with chronic conditions are at higher stress levels because of the higher risk of poorer COVID-19 outcomes [22]. According to the rapid spread of COVID-19 worldwide, combined with compulsory quarantine and widespread lockdowns, it triggered public fear and disseminated rumors and conspiracy theories [23].
During COVID-19, patients with chronic conditions may experience anxiety, depression, and stress, and their pattern of seeking medical care may change.
This study intends to assess the effect of COVID-19 on medical care among Egyptian patients with chronic diseases through anxiety, depression, or stress caused by the outbreak.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Design

A cross-sectional study was conducted in Egypt between March and June 2021. Approved by the Research Ethics Committee, number FMBSUREC/09052021. This study included patients with chronic diseases (diabetes, hypertension, and other chronic diseases) who received medical care in various ambulatory clinics. A total of 2176 participants were invited through text messages to participate as per government recommendations to minimize face-to-face or physical interaction as citizens continue to isolate themselves at home. Potential respondents were invited through a text message, resulting in 1450 total responses; we excluded 379 responses for not having completed data, and 35 participants did not meet the inclusion criteria. The following criteria were used to determine inclusion criteria: (1) informed consent prior to the survey; (2) residence in Egypt; (3) age 18 years or older; and (4) confirmed chronic condition diagnosis. Each participant provided information about their basic demographics as well as chronic diseases such as hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and other comorbidities. Our study aimed to investigate the following hypotheses that were more closely related to psychological impact: A higher level of anxiety, depression, and stress will be significantly associated with less regular medical follow-up for chronic disease patients during the COVID-19 pandemic in Egypt.

2.2. Sample Technique

An online Google form containing a questionnaire was sent via social media such as WhatsApp, Facebook, emails, and others. Respondent’s target is Egyptian adults above 18 years old with any chronic diseases. We collected data anonymously, without collecting information that could identify the respondents. The first part of the study questionnaire collected socio-demographic information, including age, gender, occupational status, city of residence, marital status, educational level, and comorbidities (diabetes, hypertension, cancer, obesity, cardiac disease, COPD, etc.).

2.3. Data Collection Tool

The questionnaire was translated from English to Arabic by two professionals and a native Arabic speaker with English as their first language. To evaluate the validity and reliability of the questionnaire, we performed a pilot study on 30 Egyptian participants, who were then excluded from the main study and the subsequent data analysis.
A pilot analysis was used to assess the clarity of the DASS and its appropriateness through online interviews with 30 participants. No difficulties were reported in completing it, so no further changes were made. The internal consistency of the questionnaire was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. No interclass correlation was detected in the initial pilot study, so no components were deleted from the original version. Cronbach’s alpha for the depression domain was 0.872, that of the anxiety domain was 0.910, and that of the stress domain was 0.891.
Part 1: 20-item self-structured questions evaluated the socio-demographic data of study participants, including: age, gender, BMI, academic achievement, employment status, place of residence, and maternal status. In addition, data related to medical status, timing of receiving medications before and during COVID, places of getting medications, and usage of transportation vehicles were collected. The data also included whether safety measures were used while receiving medications during the pandemic or not. The questionnaire contained the status of persons for whom COVID-19 was suspected at any given time and what their response was regarding medical advice or not. Data concerning the seeking of medical advice for their chronic diseases was gathered.
Part 2: 21-item self-administered questions; using the DASS-21 to evaluate emotional states of anxiety, stress, and depression [24]. It is measured by the 5-point Likert scale. Final response scores were identified as normal, mild, moderate, severe, and very severe.
The depression scale assesses dysphoria, hopelessness, devaluation of life, self-deprecation, lack of interest or involvement, anhedonia, and inertia. The anxiety scale assesses autonomic arousal, skeletal muscle effects, situational anxiety, and the subjective experience of anxious affect. The stress scale is sensitive to levels of chronic non-specific arousal. It assesses difficulty relaxing, nervous arousal, being easily upset or agitated, being irritable or overly reactive, and being impatient. Scores for depression, anxiety, and stress are calculated by summing the scores for the relevant items.
The rating score was considered four choices: pick up zero when the participant saw that the choice is not applied to him at all, one when the choice is applied to him to some degree or some of the time, two when the choice is applied to him to a considerable degree or a good part of the time, and three when the choice is applied to him to very much or most of the time.
The depression score was considered normal when falling between 0 and 9, mild when falling between 10 and 13, moderate when falling between 14 and 20, severe when falling between 21 and 27, and extremely severe when falling at 28 or above. The anxiety score was considered normal when it was between 0 and 7, mild when it was between 8 and 9, moderate when it was between 10 and 14, severe when it was between 15 and 19, and extremely high when it was 20 or above. The stress score was considered normal when it fell between 0 and 14, mild when it fell between 15 and 18, moderate when it fell between 19 and 25, severe when it fell between 26 and 33, and extreme when it fell between 34 and above.
Using Epi Info StatCalc [25], the sample size for a population survey was calculated at a 95% confidence level with a 5% acceptable margin of error, one design effect, and 50% expected frequency (of regular follow-up or a positive DASS). The minimum sample size was found to be at least 384 people, which was tripled to overcome the selection bias.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

The Statistical Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 25 was used to gather, code, and analyze the data (IBM, USA) IBM Corp. Released 2017. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 25.0. Armonk, NY: IBM Corp. We estimated the frequency distribution of categorical variables as a percentage and the mean and SD for scale variables. We categorized the scale variables by median (age at less than or equal to 32 and more than 32 years, and BMI at less than or equal to 27.8 and more than 27.8). The Chi-Square Test of Independence was utilized to determine a connection between categorical variables (difference between follow-up and no follow-up and age, sex, residence, working status, occupation, education, chronic disease, degree categories of depression, anxiety, and stress). Binary logistic regression was used to identify the determinants of no follow-up among the hypothesized factors that can affect the probability of its occurrence. The mentioned binary logistic model is the best model that explained the probability of no follow-up occurrence after excluding intercorrelation between variables and redundant variables such as BMI, working status, marital status, and residence. p values of ≤0.05 were considered significant.

3. Results

The total number of eligible responses was 1036 patients with chronic diseases. They were filling on their behalf and were included. The baseline characteristics of chronic disease patients are shown in Table 1, with a median age of 32, a marriage rate of 52.4%, and a majority having more than one chronic disorder (i.e., hypertension plus diabetes) at around 37.5%. Diabetes and hypertension were the most common chronic diseases in our sample population, but we also included other comorbidities (cancer, obesity, COPD, cardiac disease, and autoimmune disease); however, they were not significant in our sample population.
In addition, Table 2 showed the information about COVID-19 infection status and medical treatment received for it. 59.3% were clinically suspected of having COVID-19, 35.8% were self-isolated, and 32.9% went to the hospital.
Moreover, the patients’ follow-up pattern before and during the COVID-19 pandemic was illustrated in Table 3. Our results revealed that 73.6% were regularly collecting their medication before the COVID-19 pandemic and dropped to 43.5% during the COVID-19 pandemic as 63.2% had a fear of COVID-19 infection.
Furthermore, the results illustrated that 52%, 60%, and 35.6% of patients with chronic diseases suffered from depression, anxiety, and stress, ranging from mild to very severe, respectively, as shown in Table 4.
The univariate analysis revealed the following statuses: being female, being younger, having a low BMI, being unmarried, having a low educational level, not working, having an urban residency, and not preferring telemedicine were significantly associated with less regular follow-up, as illustrated in Table 5. While having DM plus hypertension was more significantly associated with follow-up.
DASS-21 was used to evaluate the emotional states of anxiety, stress, and depression, all of which were significantly associated with regular follow-up.
The results illustrated that after adjustment for age, gender, residence, presence of depression, presence of anxiety, and presence of stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, it was found that the presence of anxiety caused by the COVID-19 pandemic increased the probability of no follow-up (in other words, the stress caused by the COVID-19 pandemic decreases the follow-up rate) with OR, the 95% CI of OR was 2.693, 1.856 to 3.908 as indicated in Table 6. In addition, being old and male decreased the probability of no follow-up significantly with OR; the 95% CI of OR was 0.318, 0.236 to 0.428, and 0.608, 0.450 to 0.822 for age and sex, respectively.

4. Discussion

The global healthcare system is being stressed by the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic [26]. This study aimed to evaluate the psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on patients with chronic conditions who may have suffered from anxiety, depression, and stress during COVID-19, which may have affected their pattern of seeking medical care among the Egyptian population [27]. Healthcare administrators, emergency responders, and healthcare clinicians must all receive coaching and education on psychological issues from the healthcare system [28]. Identifying, establishing, and allocating evidence-based resources for disaster-related mental health, psychological well-being crises and referral, particular patient needs, and alarm and distress treatment are all tasks that mental health and emergency response systems must collaborate on [29]. Despite health issues, medical treatment professionals eventually have a vital role in identifying psychosocial requirements and providing psychosocial aid to their patients, as well as social efforts that should be incorporated into overall pandemic healthcare. A rise in known risk factors for mental health issues has been attributed to COVID-19. Quarantine and physical isolation are also present, along with oddities and discomfort [30]. This study revealed that 52.2% of patients did not follow-up regularly with their chronic diseases during COVID-19; 63.2% of the patients attributed the absence of follow-up to their fear of COVID-19 infection, 21.3% of the patients attributed the no follow-up status to the cost of medical care with limited resources during COVID-19; and 58% preferred to follow-up with telemedicine. New techniques for providing care through telemedicine to lessen in-person interactions.
To enable health care clinicians to keep scheduled appointments, new digital and virtual healthcare practices must be used, in accordance with a previous study [31]. Additionally, the usage of apps can aid in the self-management of chronic illnesses, such as diabetes, where continuous glucose monitoring is possible. However, the bulk of those suffering from non-communicable diseases reside in low- and middle-income nations [32]. Our findings showed that the fear enveloping people’s thoughts about the pandemic and the hazards of becoming infected by stepping outside was the main reason for the absence of medical follow-up in chronic disease patients. About half of individuals with medical illnesses handled their conditions by calling doctors through telemedicine and collecting their own medication from a community pharmacy. Previous studies revealed that around 55% of patients with chronic diseases did not contact their doctors and depended on self-medication [33,34]. In concordance with our findings, previous studies showed that people have generally been practicing—or have been pushed to practice—rational medical practices in the face of the greater concern consuming their minds regarding the pandemic and the risks of contracting it by venturing outside. The majority of participants with medical illnesses controlled their tolerable suffering by following the medications already provided or by calling doctors as necessary. Only a true emergency (fracture) or a perceived emergency (illness) had prompted the travel to a medical facility away from home (suspected COVID-19) [33].
Through timely detection, referral, and care of suspected cases, community pharmacies and pharmacy employees play a critical role in avoiding the “community transmission” stage of COVID-19. Yet, in accordance with government guidelines, our study revealed most patients were aware of self-care to avoid infection transmission, including hand rubs with alcohol for 68.9% of patients and proper use of face masks for 92.5% of patients [35].
Moreover, this study found that a low educational level was significantly associated with no follow-up, as was urban residence, which was more significantly associated with no follow-up. In these times, the socioeconomic division, combined with limited access to high-quality health care, has become even more apparent [36]. On the other hand, many people have limited access to the internet, so teleconsultation would be difficult for them. This may have played a factor due to the reduced study sample size and some target people not receiving the survey, which results in a limitation in our study. Apart from the socioeconomic divide highlighting poor access to health care and advice, the pandemic resulted in the emergence of stress, fear, and anxiety disorders across the population, regardless of social status [37]. As a result, COVID-19 has increased the prevalence of mental health issues, as has been the case in the past following novel disease epidemics and natural disasters. Not just COVID-19, but all significant emergencies surely result in mental health issues. Studies of previous outbreaks revealed that 31.2% of people quarantined due to COVID-19 in Toronto, Canada, and roughly 35% of SARS survivors in Hong Kong both experienced symptoms of anxiety and/or depression [23,38].
Using the DASS-21 tool, we discovered that 45.1% of patients with chronic diseases had moderate to severe depression, 53.8% had moderate to severe anxiety, and 34.8% had moderate to severe stress. A univariate analysis revealed that the more severe the depression, anxiety, and stress, the more severe the disease. We found that the greater the increase in the scores of depression, anxiety, and stress, the more they were significantly associated with the no follow-ups, which matches with previous studies [39,40].
There is a need to raise awareness among chronic disease patients, particularly among the poor, about the significance of sticking to their medications [41]. Patients with chronic conditions, particularly those from poor backgrounds, need to be made aware of the value of taking their prescriptions as prescribed. It would be wise to keep in mind the tremendous patient population of so many other diseases, especially the chronic diseases, which need regular monitoring, advice, and medications. Although the public resources at the moment are primarily focused on overcoming the huge challenge of containing the COVID pandemic and looking for effective therapies. To reduce overall concern and provide the needed incentive for community health promotion, additional proactive steps such as creating consultation facilities or streamlining the prescription refill procedure for such individuals will be helpful [41].
The relevant contribution of this study to the field of literature is the urgency of regular monitoring and providing patients with “counseling for patients,” especially those suffering from chronic diseases, to help them overcome any fear during any pandemic and control their diseases well.

5. Limitations

The study should be conducted on larger scales in different countries as a multicentered study. Also, the study should be well designed to avoid any bias during the sampling procedure. More comorbidities must be evaluated and compared.

6. Conclusions

Though public resources are focused on overcoming the herculean task of containing the COVID-19 pandemic and finding effective therapies, it is prudent to remember that the vast patient population of many other diseases, particularly chronic diseases, requires regular monitoring, advice, and medication. More proactive steps, such as providing consultation services or making the procedure of refilling medicines for such patients easier, can help alleviate anxiety in general and provide the necessary impetus for community health promotion.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, H.S., A.S.I.R. and A.K.; methodology, H.S., A.S.I.R. and A.K.; software, H.S., A.S.I.R. and A.K.; validation, H.S., A.S.I.R. and A.K.; formal analysis, D.M.K.; investigation, H.S., A.S.I.R. and A.K.; resources, H.S., A.S.I.R. and A.K.; data curation, D.M.K.; writing—original draft preparation, All authors; writing—review and editing, All authors; visualization, All authors; supervision, all authors; project administration, all authors; funding acquisition, all authors. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

The study was conducted in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki, and approved by the Institutional Review Board REC of the Faculty of Medicine at Beni-Suef University with approval number FMBSUREC/09052021/Sayed. All data was anonymous and confidential; no one was obliged to participate in the study.

Informed Consent Statement

Patient consent was waived due to conduction of this observational study at the time of COVID-19 and government recommendations to minimize face-to-face or physical interaction as citizens continue to isolate themselves at home.

Data Availability Statement

The data will be available from the corresponding author upon request.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Yakub, A.U.; Aminu, M.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, A.; Barik, M. Aetiopathogenesis, Causal Factor and Morphology of COVID-19: Recent Advances and Future Prospective. A TEXT BOOK OF THE SARS-CoV-2 CHAPTER 15 August 2020. Available online: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Mayadhar-Barik-3/publication/343577322_A_TEXT_BOOK_OF_THE_SARS-CoV-2 (accessed on 15 February 2023).
  2. Fahmi, I.J.D. World Health Organization Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Situation Report; World Health Organization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2019. [Google Scholar]
  3. Bos-Touwen, I.; Schuurmans, M.; Monninkhof, E.M.; Korpershoek, Y.; Spruit-Bentvelzen, L.; Ertugrul-van der Graaf, I.; de Wit, N.; Trappenburg, J. Patient and disease characteristics associated with activation for self-management in patients with diabetes, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, chronic heart failure and chronic renal disease: A cross-sectional survey study. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0126400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Zakeri, M.A.; Dehghan, M.; Ghaedi-Heidari, F.; Zakeri, M.; Bazmandegan, G.J.B.R.I. Chronic patients’ activation and its association with stress, anxiety, depression, and quality of life: A Survey in Southeast Iran. BioMed Res. Int. 2021, 2021, 6614566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Karami, N.; Kazeminia, M.; Karami, A.; Salimi, Y.; Ziapour, A.; Janjani, P. Global prevalence of depression, anxiety, and stress in cardiac patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Affect. Disord. 2023, 324, 175–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Gorrochategi, M.P.; Munitis, A.E.; Santamaria, M.D.; Etxebarria, N.O. Stress, anxiety, and depression in people aged over 60 in the COVID-19 outbreak in a sample collected in Northern Spain. Am. J. Geriatr. Psychiatry 2020, 28, 993–998. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  7. Applegate, W.B.; Ouslander, J.G. COVID-19 presents high risk to older persons. J. Am. Geriatr. Soc. 2020, 68, 681. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Niu, S.; Tian, S.; Lou, J.; Kang, X.; Zhang, L.; Lian, H.; Zhang, J.J. Clinical characteristics of older patients infected with COVID-19: A descriptive study. Arch. Gerontol. Geriatr. 2020, 89, 104058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Taylor, S. COVID stress syndrome: Clinical and nosological considerations. Curr. Psychiatry Rep. 2021, 23, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Chan, J.F.-W.; Yuan, S.; Kok, K.-H.; To, K.K.-W.; Chu, H.; Yang, J.; Xing, F.; Liu, J.; Yip, C.C.-Y.; Poon, R.W.-S.J.T.l. A familial cluster of pneumonia associated with the 2019 novel coronavirus indicating person-to-person transmission: A study of a family cluster. Lancet 2020, 395, 514–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Jordan, R.E.; Adab, P.; Cheng, K.J.B. COVID-19: Risk factors for severe disease and death. Br. Med. J. Publ. Group 2020, 368, m1198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Caballero-Domínguez, C.C.; Campo-Arias, A.J.D. Problemas de salud mental en la sociedad: Un acercamiento desde el impacto del COVID 19 y de la cuarentena. Duazary 2020, 17, 1–3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Sanyaolu, A.; Okorie, C.; Marinkovic, A.; Patidar, R.; Younis, K.; Desai, P.; Hosein, Z.; Padda, I.; Mangat, J.; Altaf, M.J. Comorbidity and its impact on patients with COVID-19. SN Compr. Clin. Med. 2020, 2, 1069–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Dubey, S.; Biswas, P.; Ghosh, R.; Chatterjee, S.; Dubey, M.J.; Chatterjee, S.; Lahiri, D.; Lavie, C.J. Psychosocial impact of COVID-19. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020, 14, 779–788. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Masroor, S. Collateral damage of COVID-19 pandemic: Delayed medical care. J. Card. Surg. 2020, 35, 1345–1347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Liu, N.; Huang, R.; Baldacchino, T.; Sud, A.; Sud, K.; Khadra, M.; Kim, J. Telehealth for noncritical patients with chronic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic. J. Med Internet Res. 2020, 22, e19493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Dong, Z.-Q.; Ma, J.; Hao, Y.-N.; Shen, X.-L.; Liu, F.; Gao, Y.; Zhang, L. The social psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on medical staff in China: A cross-sectional study. Eur. Psychiatry 2020, 63, e65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zhang, C.; Yang, L.; Liu, S.; Ma, S.; Wang, Y.; Cai, Z.; Du, H.; Li, R.; Kang, L.; Su, M. Survey of insomnia and related social psychological factors among medical staff involved in the 2019 novel coronavirus disease outbreak. Front. Psychiatry 2020, 11, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  19. Lai, J.; Ma, S.; Wang, Y.; Cai, Z.; Hu, J.; Wei, N.; Wu, J.; Du, H.; Chen, T.; Li, R. Factors associated with mental health outcomes among health care workers exposed to coronavirus disease 2019. JAMA Netw. Open 2020, 3, e203976. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bohlken, J.; Schömig, F.; Lemke, M.R.; Pumberger, M.; Riedel-Heller, S.G. COVID-19 pandemic: Stress experience of healthcare workers-a short current review. Psychiatr. Prax. 2020, 47, 190–197. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  21. Kendzerska, T.; Zhu, D.T.; Gershon, A.S.; Edwards, J.D.; Peixoto, C.; Robillard, R.; Kendall, C.E. The effects of the health system response to the COVID-19 pandemic on chronic disease management: A narrative review. Risk Manag. Healthc. Policy 2021, 14, 575–584. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  22. Vindegaard, N.; Benros, M.E. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: Systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 89, 531–542. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Hawryluck, L.; Gold, W.L.; Robinson, S.; Pogorski, S.; Galea, S.; Styra, R. SARS control and psychological effects of quarantine, Toronto, Canada. Emerg. Infect. Dis. 2004, 10, 1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Lovibond, P.F.; Lovibond, S.H. The structure of negative emotional states: Comparison of the Depression Anxiety Stress Scales (DASS) with the Beck Depression and Anxiety Inventories. Behav. Res. Ther. 1995, 33, 335–343. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Epi Info, Center for Surveillance, Epidemiology and Laboratory Services. Division of Health Informatics & Surveillance (DHIS). 2014, 1. Available online: https://www.cdc.gov/csels/dhis/index.html (accessed on 15 February 2023).
  26. Legido-Quigley, H.; Asgari, N.; Teo, Y.Y.; Leung, G.M.; Oshitani, H.; Fukuda, K.; Cook, A.R.; Hsu, L.Y.; Shibuya, K.; Heymann, D. Are high-performing health systems resilient against the COVID-19 epidemic? Lancet 2020, 395, 848–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Lakhan, R.; Agrawal, A.; Sharma, M. Prevalence of Depression, Anxiety, and Stress during COVID-19 Pandemic. J. Neurosci. Rural. Pract. 2020, 11, 519–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Huffman, E.M.; Athanasiadis, D.I.; Anton, N.E.; Haskett, L.A.; Doster, D.L.; Stefanidis, D.; Lee, N.K. How resilient is your team? Exploring healthcare providers’ well-being during the COVID-19 pandemic. Am. J. Surg. 2021, 221, 277–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  29. Restubog, S.L.D.; Ocampo, A.C.G.; Wang, L.J. Taking Control Amidst the Chaos: Emotion Regulation during the COVID-19 Pandemic; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2020; p. 103440. [Google Scholar]
  30. Chan, A.S.W.; Ho, J.M.C.; Li, J.S.F.; Tam, H.L.; Tang, P.M.K. Impacts of COVID-19 Pandemic on Psychological Well-Being of Older Chronic Kidney Disease Patients. Front. Med. 2021, 8, 666973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Haleem, A.; Javaid, M.; Singh, R.P.; Suman, R. Telemedicine for healthcare: Capabilities, features, barriers, and applications. Sens. Int. 2021, 2, 100117. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Chudasama, Y.V.; Gillies, C.L.; Zaccardi, F.; Coles, B.; Davies, M.J.; Seidu, S.; Khunti, K. Impact of COVID-19 on routine care for chronic diseases: A global survey of views from healthcare professionals. Diabetes Metab. Syndr. Clin. Res. Rev. 2020, 14, 965–967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Tandon, T.; Dubey, A.K.; Dubey, S.; Arora, E.; Hasan, M. Effects of COVID-19 pandemic lockdown on medical advice seeking and medication practices of home-bound non-COVID patients. J. Educ. Health Promot. 2021, 10, 28. [Google Scholar]
  34. Bennadi, D. Self-medication: A current challenge. J. Basic Clin. Pharm. 2013, 5, 19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Amariles, P.; Ledezma-Morales, M.; Salazar-Ospina, A.; Hincapié-García, J.A. How to link patients with suspicious COVID-19 to health system from the community pharmacies? A route proposal. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2021, 17, 1988–1989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Kretchy, I.A.; Asiedu-Danso, M.; Kretchy, J.-P. Medication management and adherence during the COVID-19 pandemic: Perspectives and experiences from low-and middle-income countries. Res. Soc. Adm. Pharm. 2021, 17, 2023–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. DiMatteo, M.R. Variations in patients’ adherence to medical recommendations: A quantitative review of 50 years of research. Med. Care 2004, 200–209. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Cheng, S.K.; Wong, C.W.; Tsang, J.; Wong, K.C. Psychological distress and negative appraisals in survivors of severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS). Psychol. Med. 2004, 34, 1187–1195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. González-Sanguino, C.; Ausín, B.; Castellanos, M.Á.; Saiz, J.; López-Gómez, A.; Ugidos, C.; Muñoz, M. Mental health consequences during the initial stage of the 2020 Coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19) in Spain. Brain Behav. Immun. 2020, 87, 172–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Horesh, D.; Kapel Lev-Ari, R.; Hasson-Ohayon, I. Risk factors for psychological distress during the COVID-19 pandemic in Israel: Loneliness, age, gender, and health status play an important role. Br. J. Health Psychol. 2020, 25, 925–933. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kripalani, S.; Yao, X.; Haynes, R.B. Interventions to enhance medication adherence in chronic medical conditions: A systematic review. Arch. Intern. Med. 2007, 167, 540–549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants.
Table 1. Baseline characteristics of participants.
CharacteristicsNumber (%)
Age
Mean ± SD32.8 ± 12.8
Median32.00
Young (≤32)557 (53.8)
Old (>32)479 (46.2)
Sex
Female448 (43.2)
Male588 (56.8)
BMI
Mean ± SD27.3 ± 4.5
Median27.8
Low (≤28))559 (54.0)
High (>28)477 (46.0)
Marital status
Widowed12 (1.1)
Single/NA473 (45.7)
Married543 (52.4)
Divorced8 (0.8)
Educational level
Bachelor337 (32.5)
Intermediate Technical education 12 (1.1)
Post-graduation 365 (35.3)
Student (high school or faculty) 305 (29.5)
Not educated17 (1.6)
Occupation
Non-medical personnel426 (41.1)
Student 342 (33.0)
On pension24 (2.3)
Not working49 (4.7)
Medical personnel195 (18.9)
Residence
Urban143 (13.8)
Rural893 (86.2)
Chronic disease
DM120 (11.6)
HTN85 (8.2)
DM and HTN184 (17.8)
Others/Multiple co-morbidities 647 (62.4)
SD = standard deviation; DM = diabetes mellitus; HTN = hypertension.
Table 2. COVID-19 infection status and medical treatment received.
Table 2. COVID-19 infection status and medical treatment received.
ItemNumber (%)
Did you have clinically suspected COVID-19
No422 (40.7)
Yes614 (59.3)
Seeking medical care
Nearest pharmacy115 (18.7)
Go to hospital202 (32.9)
At home by doctor97 (15.8)
Telemedicine178 (29)
self-isolated 22 (3.58)
Table 3. Patients’ follow-up patterns before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 3. Patients’ follow-up patterns before and during the COVID-19 pandemic.
ItemNumber (%)
Medication collection regularly before COVID-19
Not regularly 274 (26.4)
Yes, regularly762 (73.6)
Medication collection regularly during COVID-19
Not regularly 585 (56.4)
Yes, regularly451 (43.5)
Place to collect medication
Health Insurance Org276 (26.6)
Community pharmacy570 (55.0)
No medication collection 128 (12.4)
University hospital28 (2.7)
General hospital34 (3.3)
Transportation to site of medication collection
No634 (61.2)
Yes402 (38.8)
Seeking medical care for chronic disease during COVID-19
Monthly290 (28.0)
Every 3 months167 (16.1)
Every 6 months38 (3.7)
Not follow-up my chronic disease541 (52.2)
Causes of not follow-up medical care (n = 541)
Cost of medical care with limited resources during COVID115 (21.3)
Fear of COVID infection342 (63.2)
Far site of medical care53 (9.8)
Cannot find who follow me31 (5.7)
Do you prefer telemedicine
No435 (42.0)
Yes601 (58.0)
Use mask during medication collection
No78 (7.5)
Yes958 (92.5)
Rub your hand with Alcohol during medication collection
No322 (31.1)
Yes714 (68.9)
Only social distancing during medication collection
(Without face mask or alcohol rub)
No837 (80.8)
Yes199 (19.2)
Table 4. DASS-21 score among participants.
Table 4. DASS-21 score among participants.
ItemsNumber (%)
Depression
Normal492 (47.5)
Mild127 (12.3)
Moderate164 (15.8)
Severe132 (12.7)
Very severe121 (11.7)
Anxiety
Normal436 (42.1)
Mild93 (9.0)
Moderate241 (23.3)
Severe100 (9.7)
Very severe166 (16.0)
Stress
Normal667 (64.4)
Mild107 (10.3)
Moderate100 (9.7)
Severe112 (10.8)
Very severe50 (4.8)
Table 5. Univariate analysis for risk factors associated with less regular follow-up of chronic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 5. Univariate analysis for risk factors associated with less regular follow-up of chronic disease during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Risk FactorsFollow-Up
(no = 495)
No Follow-Up
(no = 541)
p-ValueComments
Sex <0.001 *Female sex is associated with less regular follow-up
Female147 (29.7%)301 (55.6%)
Male348 (70.3%)240 (44.4%)
Age <0.001 *Youngers age is associated with less regular follow-up
Young197 (39.8%)360 (66.5%)
old298 (60.2%)181 (33.5%)
BMI <0.001 *Low BMI is associated with less regular follow-up
Low (≤28)204 (41.2%)355 (65.6%)
High (>28)291 (58.8%)186 (34.4%)
Marital status <0.001 *Unmarried isassociated with less regular follow-up
Unmarried151 (30.5%)342 (63.2%)
Married344 (69.5%)199 (36.8%)
Educational level <0.001 *Low educational level is associated with less regular follow-up
Bachelor182 (36.8%)155 (28.7%)
Intermediate 7 (1.4%)5 (0.9%)
Post-graduation213 (43.0%)152 (28.1%)
Student85 (17.2%)220 (40.7%)
Not educated8 (1.6%)9 (1.7%)
Educational level <0.001*
Till secondary100 (20.2%)234 (43.3%)
University and post395 (79.8%)307 (56.7%)
Occupation <0.001 *Not-working participants were more likely to be less regular with follow-up
Non-medical personnel252 (50.9%)174 (32.2%)
Student 92 (18.6%)250 (46.2%)
On pension21 (4.2%)3 (0.6%)
Not working23 (4.6%)26 (4.8%)
Medical personnel107 (21.6%)88 (16.3%)
Working status <0.001 *
Not working136 (27.5%)279 (51.6%)
Working359 (72.5%)262 (48.4%)
Residence 0.026 *Urban residence was more associated with less regular follow-up
Urban56 (11.3%)87 (16.1%)
Rural439 (88.7%)454 (83.9%)
Chronic disease <0.001 *DM with HTN was more associated with follow-up
DM51 (10.3%)69 (12.8%)
HTN47 (9.5%)38 (7.0%)
DM and HTN128 (25.9%)56 (10.4%)
Others269 (54.3%)378 (69.9%)
Prefer telemedicine 0.046 *Those who do not prefer telemedicine were more likely not to regularly follow-up
No192 (38.8%)243 (44.9%)
Yes303 (61.2%)298 (55.1%)
Depression <0.001 *Increase the score of depression; increase the less regular follow-up
Normal291 (58.8%)201 (37.2%)
Mild31 (6.3%)96 (17.7%)
Moderate68 (13.7%)96 (17.7%)
Severe80 (16.2%)52 (9.6%)
Very severe25 (5.1%)96 (17.7%)
Depression 0.001 *
Normal to mild322 (65.1%)297 (54.9%)
Moderate to very severe173 (34.9%)244 (45.1%)
Anxiety <0.001 *Increase the score of anxiety; increase the less regular follow-up
Normal266 (53.7%)170 (31.4%)
Mild13 (2.6%)80 (14.8%)
Moderate109 (22.0%)132 (24.4%)
Severe53 (10.7%)47 (8.7%)
Very severe54 (10.9%)112 (20.7%)
Anxiety 0.001 *
Normal to mild279 (56.4%)250 (46.2%)
Moderate to very severe216 (43.6%)291 (53.8%)
Stress <0.001 *Increase the score of stress; increase the less regular follow-up
Normal366 (73.9%)301 (55.6%)
Mild55 (11.1%)52 (9.6%)
Moderate32 (6.5%)68 (12.6%)
Severe33 (6.7%)79 (14.6%)
Very severe9 (1.8%)41 (7.6%)
Stress 0.001 *
Normal to mild421 (85.1%)353 (65.2%)
Moderate to very severe74 (14.9%)188 (34.8%)
* p-value is significant. Chi-Squared test
Table 6. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis for prediction of risk factors associated with no follow-up of chronic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Table 6. Multivariable binary logistic regression analysis for prediction of risk factors associated with no follow-up of chronic diseases during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Independent Variablesp-ValueOR95% C.I. for OR
LowerUpper
Old age (>32)0.001 *0.3180.2360.428
Male sex0.001 *0.6080.4500.822
Rural residence0.8341.0440.7001.556
Presence of depression0.7041.0800.7271.605
Presence of anxiety0.001 *2.6931.8563.908
Presence of stress0.7031.0760.7381.570
OR = Odds ratio CI = confidence interval * p-value is significant.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Salah, H.; Ibrahim Rabie, A.S.; Said, A.S.A.; AlAhmad, M.M.; Shaaban, A.H.; Khalil, D.M.; Hussein, R.R.S.; Khodary, A. COVID-19′s Psychological Impact on Chronic Disease Patients Seeking Medical Care. Healthcare 2023, 11, 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060888

AMA Style

Salah H, Ibrahim Rabie AS, Said ASA, AlAhmad MM, Shaaban AH, Khalil DM, Hussein RRS, Khodary A. COVID-19′s Psychological Impact on Chronic Disease Patients Seeking Medical Care. Healthcare. 2023; 11(6):888. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060888

Chicago/Turabian Style

Salah, Hager, AL Shaimaa Ibrahim Rabie, Amira S. A. Said, Mohammad M. AlAhmad, Ahmed Hassan Shaaban, Doaa Mahmoud Khalil, Raghda R. S. Hussein, and Azza Khodary. 2023. "COVID-19′s Psychological Impact on Chronic Disease Patients Seeking Medical Care" Healthcare 11, no. 6: 888. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11060888

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop