RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 The Effects of Messaging on Expectations and Understanding of Long COVID: An Online Randomised Trial
JF medRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press
SP 2022.01.18.22269467
DO 10.1101/2022.01.18.22269467
A1 Bhogal, Jaskiran Kaur
A1 Mills, Freya
A1 Dennis, Amelia
A1 Spoiala, Cristina
A1 Milward, Joanna
A1 Saeed, Sidra
A1 Jones, Leah Ffion
A1 Weston, Dale
A1 Carter, Holly
YR 2022
UL http://medrxiv.org/content/early/2022/01/23/2022.01.18.22269467.abstract
AB Objectives We examined whether providing different types of information about Long COVID would affect expectations about the illness.Design A 2 (Illness description: Long COVID vs ongoing COVID-19 recovery) x 2 (Illness uncertainty: uncertainty emphasised vs uncertainty not emphasised) x 2 (Efficacy of support: enhanced support vs basic support) between-subjects randomised online experimental study.Setting The online platform Prolific, collected in October 2021.Participants A representative sample of 1110 members of the public in the UK.Interventions Participants were presented with a scenario describing a positive COVID-19 test result and then presented with one of eight scenarios describing a Long COVID diagnosis.Primary and Secondary Outcome Measures Various outcome measures relating to illness expectations were captured including: symptom severity, symptom duration, quality of life, personal control, treatment control and illness coherence.Results We ran a series of 2 × 2 × 2 ANOVAs on the outcome variables. We found a main effect of illness description: individuals reported longer symptom duration and less illness coherence when the illness was described as Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery). There was a main effect of illness uncertainty: when uncertainty was emphasised, participants reported longer expected symptom duration, less treatment control, and less illness coherence than when uncertainty was not emphasised. There was also a main effect of efficacy of support: participants reported higher personal control and higher treatment control when support was enhanced (compared to basic support). We also found an interaction between illness description and efficacy of support: when support was enhanced, participants reported less illness coherence for Long COVID (compared to ongoing COVID-19 recovery).Conclusions Communications around Long COVID should not emphasise symptom uncertainty and should provide people with information on how they can facilitate their recovery and where they can access additional support. The findings also suggest that use of the term ongoing COVID-19 recovery, where possible, may reduce negative expectations associated with the illness.Strengths and Limitations of this studyThis is one of the first experimental designed studies to assess the impact of different types of communication about Long COVID.Participants were a UK representative sample, although these findings are not necessarily applicable to all population groups (i.e., ethnic minorities).This study is one of the first applications of the IPQ-R in a hypothetical, online experiment, with high reliability.This was an online experiment, with hypothetical scenarios and participants with no experience of COVID-19 or Long COVID, therefore outcomes may be different in a real-world context.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Clinical Protocols https://www.osf.io/7yq56 Funding StatementHC and DW are supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Units (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), King's College London and the University of East Anglia, and the NIHR HPRU in Behavioural Science and Evaluation, a partnership between UK Health Security Agency and the University of Bristol. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, UKHSA or the Department of Health and Social Care. All authors had full access to the data and can take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. No external funding organisation had a role in the design; in the collection; analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript or in the decision to publish results.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:Public Health England Research Ethics and Governance GroupI confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.YesI understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesThe data from the current study is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.