research study about covid 19 in the philippines

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• For authors
• Browse by collection
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 10, Issue 11
• The Philippine COVID-19 Outcomes: a Retrospective study Of Neurological manifestations and Associated symptoms (The Philippine CORONA study): a protocol study
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5621-1833 Adrian I Espiritu 1 , 2 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1135-6400 Marie Charmaine C Sy 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1241-8805 Veeda Michelle M Anlacan 1 ,
• http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5317-7369 Roland Dominic G Jamora 1
• 1 Department of Neurosciences , College of Medicine and Philippine General Hospital, University of the Philippines Manila , Manila , Philippines
• 2 Department of Clinical Epidemiology, College of Medicine , University of the Philippines Manila , Manila , Philippines
• Correspondence to Dr Adrian I Espiritu; aiespiritu{at}up.edu.ph

Introduction The SARS-CoV-2, virus that caused the COVID-19 global pandemic, possesses a neuroinvasive potential. Patients with COVID-19 infection present with neurological signs and symptoms aside from the usual respiratory affectation. Moreover, COVID-19 is associated with several neurological diseases and complications, which may eventually affect clinical outcomes.

Objectives The Philippine COVID-19 Outcomes: a Retrospective study Of Neurological manifestations and Associated symptoms (The Philippine CORONA) study investigators will conduct a nationwide, multicentre study involving 37 institutions that aims to determine the neurological manifestations and factors associated with clinical outcomes in COVID-19 infection.

Methodology and analysis This is a retrospective cohort study (comparative between patients with and without neurological manifestations) via medical chart review involving adult patients with COVID-19 infection. Sample size was determined at 1342 patients. Demographic, clinical and neurological profiles will be obtained and summarised using descriptive statistics. Student’s t-test for two independent samples and χ 2 test will be used to determine differences between distributions. HRs and 95% CI will be used as an outcome measure. Kaplan-Meier curves will be constructed to plot the time to onset of mortality (survival), respiratory failure, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, duration of ventilator dependence, length of ICU stay and length of hospital stay. The log-rank test will be employed to compare the Kaplan-Meier curves. Stratified analysis will be performed to identify confounders and effects modifiers. To compute for adjusted HR with 95% CI, crude HR of outcomes will be adjusted according to the prespecified possible confounders. Cox proportional regression models will be used to determine significant factors of outcomes. Testing for goodness of fit will also be done using Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Subgroup analysis will be performed for proven prespecified effect modifiers. The effects of missing data and outliers will also be evaluated in this study.

Ethics and dissemination This protocol was approved by the Single Joint Research Ethics Board of the Philippine Department of Health (SJREB-2020–24) and the institutional review board of the different study sites. The dissemination of results will be conducted through scientific/medical conferences and through journal publication. The lay versions of the results may be provided on request.

Trial registration number NCT04386083 .

• adult neurology
• epidemiology

This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See:  http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ .

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-040944

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Strengths and limitations of this study

The Philippine COVID-19 Outcomes: a Retrospective study Of Neurological manifestations and Associated symptoms Study is a nationwide, multicentre, retrospective, cohort study with 37 Philippine sites.

Full spectrum of neurological manifestations of COVID-19 will be collected.

Retrospective gathering of data offers virtually no risk of COVID-19 infection to data collectors.

Data from COVID-19 patients who did not go to the hospital are unobtainable.

Recoding bias is inherent due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Introduction

The COVID-19 has been identified as the cause of an outbreak of respiratory illness in Wuhan, Hubei Province, China, in December 2019. 1 The COVID-19 pandemic has reached the Philippines with most of its cases found in the National Capital Region (NCR). 2 The major clinical features of COVID-19 include fever, cough, shortness of breath, myalgia, headache and diarrhoea. 3 The outcomes of this disease lead to prolonged hospital stay, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, dependence on invasive mechanical ventilation, respiratory failure and mortality. 4 The specific pathogen that causes this clinical syndrome has been named SARS-CoV-2, which is phylogenetically similar to SARS-CoV. 4 Like the SARS-CoV strain, SARS-CoV-2 may possess a similar neuroinvasive potential. 5

A study on cases with COVID-19 found that about 36.4% of patients displayed neurological manifestations of the central nervous system (CNS) and peripheral nervous system (PNS). 6 The associated spectrum of symptoms and signs were substantially broad such as altered mental status, headache, cognitive impairment, agitation, dysexecutive syndrome, seizures, corticospinal tract signs, dysgeusia, extraocular movement abnormalities and myalgia. 7–12 Several reports were published on neurological disorders associated with patients with COVID-19, including cerebrovascular disorders, encephalopathy, hypoxic brain injury, frequent convulsive seizures and inflammatory CNS syndromes like encephalitis, meningitis, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis and Guillain-Barre syndrome. 7–16 However, the estimates of the occurrences of these manifestations were based on studies with a relatively small sample size. Furthermore, the current description of COVID-19 neurological features are hampered to some extent by exceedingly variable reporting; thus, defining causality between this infection and certain neurological manifestations is crucial since this may lead to considerable complications. 17 An Italian observational study protocol on neurological manifestations has also been published to further document and corroborate these findings. 18

Epidemiological data on the proportions and spectrum of non-respiratory symptoms and complications may be essential to increase the recognition of clinicians of the possibility of COVID-19 infection in the presence of other symptoms, particularly neurological manifestations. With this information, the probabilities of diagnosing COVID-19 disease may be strengthened depending on the presence of certain neurological manifestations. Furthermore, knowledge of other unrecognised symptoms and complications may allow early diagnosis that may permit early institution of personal protective equipment and proper contact precautions. Lastly, the presence of neurological manifestations may be used for estimating the risk of certain important clinical outcomes for better and well-informed clinical decisions in patients with COVID-19 disease.

To address this lack of important information in the overall management of patients with COVID-19, we organised a research study entitled ‘The Philippine COVID-19 Outcomes: a Retrospective study Of Neurological manifestations and Associated symptoms (The Philippine CORONA Study)’.

This quantitative, retrospective cohort, multicentre study aims: (1) to determine the demographic, clinical and neurological profile of patients with COVID-19 disease in the Philippines; (2) to determine the frequency of neurological symptoms and new-onset neurological disorders/complications in patients with COVID-19 disease; (3) to determine the neurological manifestations that are significant factors of mortality, respiratory failure, duration of ventilator dependence, ICU admission, length of ICU stay and length of hospital stay among patients with COVID-19 disease; (4) to determine if there is significant difference between COVID-19 patients with neurological manifestations compared with those COVID-19 patients without neurological manifestations in terms of mortality, respiratory failure, duration of ventilator dependence, ICU admission, length of ICU stay and length of hospital stay; and (5) to determine the likelihood of mortality, respiratory failure and ICU admission, including the likelihood of longer duration of ventilator dependence and length of ICU and hospital stay in COVID-19 patients with neurological manifestations compared with those without neurological manifestations.

Scope, limitations and delimitations

The study will include confirmed cases of COVID-19 from the 37 participating institutions in the Philippines. Every country has its own healthcare system, whose level of development and strategies ultimately affect patient outcomes. Thus, the results of this study cannot be accurately generalised to other settings. In addition, patients with ages ≤18 years will be excluded in from this study. These younger patients may have different characteristics and outcomes; therefore, yielded estimates for adults in this study may not be applicable to this population subgroup. Moreover, this study will collect data from the patient records of patients with COVID-19; thus, data from patients with mild symptoms who did not go to the hospital and those who had spontaneous resolution of symptoms despite true infection with COVID-19 are unobtainable.

Methodology

To improve the quality of reporting of this study, the guidelines issued by the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology Initiative will be followed. 19

Study design

The study will be conducted using a retrospective cohort (comparative) design (see figure 1 ).

• Download figure
• Open in new tab
• Download powerpoint

Schematic diagram of the study flow.

Study sites and duration

We will conduct a nationwide, multicentre study involving 37 institutions in the Philippines (see figure 2 ). Most of these study sites can be found in the NCR, which remains to be the epicentre of the COVID-19 pandemic. 2 We will collect data for 6 months after institutional review board approval for every site.

Location of 37 study sites of the Philippine CORONA study.

Patient selection and cohort description

The cases will be identified using the designated COVID-19 censuses of all the participating centres. A total enumeration of patients with confirmed COVID-19 disease will be done in this study.

The cases identified should satisfy the following inclusion criteria: (A) adult patients at least 19 years of age; (B) cases confirmed by testing approved patient samples (ie, nasal swab, sputum and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid) employing real-time reverse transcription PCR (rRT-PCR) 20 from COVID-19 testing centres accredited by the Department of Health (DOH) of the Philippines, with clinical symptoms and signs attributable to COVID-19 disease (ie, respiratory as well as non-respiratory clinical signs and symptoms) 21 ; and (C) cases with disposition (ie, discharged stable/recovered, home/discharged against medical advice, transferred to other hospital or died) at the end of the study period. Cases with conditions or diseases caused by other organisms (ie, bacteria, other viruses, fungi and so on) or caused by other pathologies unrelated to COVID-19 disease (ie, trauma) will be excluded.

The first cohort will involve patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection who presented with any neurological manifestation/s (ie, symptoms or complications/disorder). The comparator cohort will compose of patients with confirmed COVID-19 infection without neurological manifestation/s.

Sample size calculation

We looked into the mortality outcome measure for the purposes of sample size computation. Following the cohort study of Khaledifar et al , 22 the sample size was calculated using the following parameters: two-sided 95% significance level (1 – α); 80% power (1 – β); unexposed/exposed ratio of 1; 5% of unexposed with outcome (case fatality rate from COVID19-Philippines Dashboard Tracker (PH) 23 as of 8 April 2020); and assumed risk ratio 2 (to see a two-fold increase in risk of mortality when neurological symptoms are present).

When these values were plugged in to the formula for cohort studies, 24 a minimum sample size of 1118 is required. To account for possible incomplete data, the sample was adjusted for 20% more. This means that the total sample size required is 1342 patients, which will be gathered from the participating centres.

Data collection

We formulated an electronic data collection form using Epi Info Software (V.7.2.2.16). The forms will be pilot-tested, and a formal data collection workshop will be conducted to ensure collection accuracy. The data will be obtained from the review of the medical records.

The following pertinent data will be obtained: (A) demographic data; (B) other clinical profile data/comorbidities; (C) neurological history; (D) date of illness onset; (E) respiratory and constitutional symptoms associated with COVID-19; (F) COVID-19 disease severity 25 at nadir; (G) data if neurological manifestation/s were present at onset prior to respiratory symptoms and the specific neurological manifestation/s present at onset; (H) neurological symptoms; (i) date of neurological symptom onset; (J) new-onset neurological disorders or complications; (K) date of new neurological disorder or complication onset; (L) imaging done; (M) cerebrospinal fluid analysis; (N) electrophysiological studies; (O) treatment given; (P) antibiotics given; (Q) neurological interventions given; (R) date of mortality and cause/s of mortality; (S) date of respiratory failure onset, date of mechanical ventilator cessation and cause/s of respiratory failure; (T) date of first day of ICU admission, date of discharge from ICU and indication/s for ICU admission; (U) other neurological outcomes at discharge; (V) date of hospital discharge; and (W) final disposition. See table 1 for the summary of the data to be collected for this study.

• View inline

Data to be collected in this study

Main outcomes considered

The following patient outcomes will be considered for this study:

Mortality (binary outcome): defined as the patients with confirmed COVID-19 who died.

Respiratory failure (binary outcome): defined as the patients with confirmed COVID-19 who experienced clinical symptoms and signs of respiratory insufficiency. Clinically, this condition may manifest as tachypnoea/sign of increased work of breathing (ie, respiratory rate of ≥22), abnormal blood gases (ie, hypoxaemia as evidenced by partial pressure of oxygen (PaO 2 ) <60 or hypercapnia by partial pressure of carbon dioxide of >45), or requiring oxygen supplementation (ie, PaO 2 <60 or ratio of PaO 2 /fraction of inspired oxygen (P/F ratio)) <300).

Duration of ventilator dependence (continuous outcome): defined as the number of days from initiation of assisted ventilation to cessation of mechanical ventilator use.

ICU admission (binary outcome): defined as the patients with confirmed COVID-19 admitted to an ICU or ICU-comparable setting.

Length of ICU stay (continuous outcome): defined as the number of days admitted in the ICU or ICU-comparable setting.

Length of hospital stay (continuous outcome): defined as the number of days from admission to discharge.

Data analysis plan

Statistical analysis will be performed using Stata V.7.2.2.16.

Demographic, clinical and neurological profiles will be summarised using descriptive statistics, in which categorical variables will be expressed as frequencies with corresponding percentages, and continuous variables will be pooled using means (SD).

Student’s t-test for two independent samples and χ 2 test will be used to determine differences between distributions.

HRs and 95% CI will be used as an outcome measure. Kaplan-Meier curves will be constructed to plot the time to onset of mortality (survival), respiratory failure, ICU admission, duration of ventilator dependence (recategorised binary form), length of ICU stay (recategorised binary form) and length of hospital stay (recategorised binary form). Log-rank test will be employed to compare the Kaplan-Meier curves. Stratified analysis will be performed to identify confounders and effects modifiers. To compute for adjusted HR with 95% CI, crude HR of outcomes at discrete time points will be adjusted for prespecified possible confounders such as age, history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, and respiratory disease, COVID-19 disease severity at nadir, and other significant confounding factors.

Cox proportional regression models will be used to determine significant factors of outcomes. Testing for goodness of fit will be done using Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Likelihood ratio tests and other information criteria (Akaike Information Criterion or Bayesian Information Criterion) will be used to refine the final model. Statistical significance will be considered if the 95% CI of HR or adjusted HR did not include the number one. A p value <0.05 (two tailed) is set for other analyses.

Subgroup analyses will be performed for proven prespecified effect modifiers. The following variables will be considered for subgroup analyses: age (19–64 years vs ≥65 years), sex, body mass index (<18.5 vs 18.5–22.9 vs ≥23 kg/m 2 ), with history of cardiovascular or cerebrovascular disease (presence or absence), hypertension (presence or absence), diabetes mellitus (presence or absence), respiratory disease (presence or absence), smoking status (smoker or non-smoker) and COVID-19 disease severity (mild, severe or critical disease).

The effects of missing data will be explored. All efforts will be exerted to minimise missing and spurious data. Validity of the submitted electronic data collection will be monitored and reviewed weekly to prevent missing or inaccurate input of data. Multiple imputations will be performed for missing data when possible. To check for robustness of results, analysis done for patients with complete data will be compared with the analysis with the imputed data.

The effects of outliers will also be assessed. Outliers will be assessed by z-score or boxplot. A cut-off of 3 SD from the mean can also be used. To check for robustness of results, analysis done with outliers will be compared with the analysis without the outliers.

Study organisational structure

A steering committee (AIE, MCCS, VMMA and RDGJ) was formed to direct and provide appropriate scientific, technical and methodological assistance to study site investigators and collaborators (see figure 3 ). Central administrative coordination, data management, administrative support, documentation of progress reports, data analyses and interpretation and journal publication are the main responsibilities of the steering committee. Study site investigators and collaborators are responsible for the proper collection and recording of data including the duty to maintain the confidentiality of information and the privacy of all identified patients for all the phases of the research processes.

Organisational structure of oversight of the Philippine CORONA Study.

This section is highlighted as part of the required formatting amendments by the Journal.

Ethics and dissemination

This research will adhere to the Philippine National Ethical Guidelines for Health and Health-related Research 2017. 26 This study is an observational, cohort study and will not allocate any type of intervention. The medical records of the identified patients will be reviewed retrospectively. To protect the privacy of the participant, the data collection forms will not contain any information (ie, names and institutional patient number) that could determine the identity of the patients. A sequential code will be recorded for each patient in the following format: AAA-BBB where AAA will pertain to the three-digit code randomly assigned to each study site; BBB will pertain to the sequential case number assigned by each study site. Each participating centre will designate a password-protected laptop for data collection; the password is known only to the study site.

This protocol was approved by the following institutional review boards: Single Joint Research Ethics Board of the DOH, Philippines (SJREB-2020-24); Asian Hospital and Medical Center, Muntinlupa City (2020- 010-A); Baguio General Hospital and Medical Center (BGHMC), Baguio City (BGHMC-ERC-2020-13); Cagayan Valley Medical Center (CVMC), Tuguegarao City; Capitol Medical Center, Quezon City; Cardinal Santos Medical Center (CSMC), San Juan City (CSMC REC 2020-020); Chong Hua Hospital, Cebu City (IRB 2420–04); De La Salle Medical and Health Sciences Institute (DLSMHSI), Cavite (2020-23-02-A); East Avenue Medical Center (EAMC), Quezon City (EAMC IERB 2020-38); Jose R. Reyes Memorial Medical Center, Manila; Jose B. Lingad Memorial Regional Hospital, San Fernando, Pampanga; Dr. Jose N. Rodriguez Memorial Hospital, Caloocan City; Lung Center of the Philippines (LCP), Quezon City (LCP-CT-010–2020); Manila Doctors Hospital, Manila (MDH IRB 2020-006); Makati Medical Center, Makati City (MMC IRB 2020–054); Manila Medical Center, Manila (MMERC 2020-09); Northern Mindanao Medical Center, Cagayan de Oro City (025-2020); Quirino Memorial Medical Center (QMMC), Quezon City (QMMC REB GCS 2020-28); Ospital ng Makati, Makati City; University of the Philippines – Philippine General Hospital (UP-PGH), Manila (2020-314-01 SJREB); Philippine Heart Center, Quezon City; Research Institute for Tropical Medicine, Muntinlupa City (RITM IRB 2020-16); San Lazaro Hospital, Manila; San Juan De Dios Educational Foundation Inc – Hospital, Pasay City (SJRIB 2020-0006); Southern Isabela Medical Center, Santiago City (2020-03); Southern Philippines Medical Center (SPMC), Davao City (P20062001); St. Luke’s Medical Center, Quezon City (SL-20116); St. Luke’s Medical Center, Bonifacio Global City, Taguig City (SL-20116); Southern Philippines Medical Center, Davao City; The Medical City, Pasig City; University of Santo Tomas Hospital, Manila (UST-REC-2020-04-071-MD); University of the East Ramon Magsaysay Memorial Medical Center, Inc, Quezon City (0835/E/2020/063); Veterans Memorial Medical Center (VMMC), Quezon City (VMMC-2020-025) and Vicente Sotto Memorial Medical Center, Cebu City (VSMMC-REC-O-2020–048).

The dissemination of results will be conducted through scientific/medical conferences and through journal publication. Only the aggregate results of the study shall be disseminated. The lay versions of the results may be provided on request.

Protocol registration and technical review approval

This protocol was registered in the ClinicalTrials.gov website. It has received technical review board approvals from the Department of Neurosciences, Philippine General Hospital and College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, from the Cardinal Santos Medical Center (San Juan City) and from the Research Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, De La Salle Medical and Health Sciences Institute (Dasmariñas, Cavite).

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Almira Abigail Doreen O Apor, MD, of the Department of Neurosciences, Philippine General Hospital, Philippines, for illustrating figure 2 for this publication.

• Adhikari SP ,
• Wu Y-J , et al
• Department of Health
• Philippine Society for Microbiology and Infectious Diseases
• Hu Y , et al
• Li Yan‐Chao ,
• Bai Wan‐Zhu ,
• Hashikawa T ,
• Wang M , et al
• Paterson RW ,
• Benjamin L , et al
• Hall JP , et al
• Varatharaj A ,
• Ellul MA , et al
• Mahammedi A ,
• Vagal A , et al
• Collantes MEV ,
• Espiritu AI ,
• Sy MCC , et al
• Merdji H , et al
• Sharifi Razavi A ,
• Poyiadji N ,
• Noujaim D , et al
• Zhou H , et al
• Moriguchi T ,
• Goto J , et al
• Nicholson TR , et al
• Ferrarese C ,
• Priori A , et al
• von Elm E ,
• Altman DG ,
• Egger M , et al
• Li J , et al
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
• Khaledifar A ,
• Hashemzadeh M ,
• Solati K , et al
• McGoogan JM
• Philippine Research Ethics Board

VMMA and RDGJ are joint senior authors.

AIE and MCCS are joint first authors.

Twitter @neuroaidz, @JamoraRoland

Collaborators The Philippine CORONA Study Group Collaborators: Maritoni C Abbariao, Joshua Emmanuel E Abejero, Ryndell G Alava, Robert A Barja, Dante P Bornales, Maria Teresa A Cañete, Ma. Alma E Carandang-Concepcion, Joseree-Ann S Catindig, Maria Epifania V Collantes, Evram V Corral, Ma. Lourdes P Corrales-Joson, Romulus Emmanuel H Cruz, Marita B Dantes, Ma. Caridad V Desquitado, Cid Czarina E Diesta, Carissa Paz C Dioquino, Maritzie R Eribal, Romulo U Esagunde, Rosalina B Espiritu-Picar, Valmarie S Estrada, Manolo Kristoffer C Flores, Dan Neftalie A Juangco, Muktader A Kalbi, Annabelle Y Lao-Reyes, Lina C Laxamana, Corina Maria Socorro A Macalintal, Maria Victoria G Manuel, Jennifer Justice F Manzano, Ma. Socorro C Martinez, Generaldo D Maylem, Marc Conrad C Molina, Marietta C Olaivar, Marissa T Ong, Arnold Angelo M Pineda, Joanne B Robles, Artemio A Roxas Jr, Jo Ann R Soliven, Arturo F Surdilla, Noreen Jhoanna C Tangcuangco-Trinidad, Rosalia A Teleg, Jarungchai Anton S Vatanagul and Maricar P Yumul.

Contributors All authors conceived the idea and wrote the initial drafts and revisions of the protocol. All authors made substantial contributions in this protocol for intellectual content.

Funding Philippine Neurological Association (Grant/Award Number: N/A). Expanded Hospital Research Office, Philippine General Hospital (Grant/Award Number: N/A).

Disclaimer Our funding sources had no role in the design of the protocol, and will not be involved during the methodological execution, data analyses and interpretation and decision to submit or to publish the study results.

Map disclaimer The depiction of boundaries on the map(s) in this article does not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of BMJ (or any member of its group) concerning the legal status of any country, territory, jurisdiction or area or of its authorities. The map(s) are provided without any warranty of any kind, either express or implied.

Competing interests None declared.

Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

Patient consent for publication Not required.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Loading metrics

Open Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and confidence in the Philippines and Malaysia: A cross-sectional study of sociodemographic factors and digital health literacy

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

* E-mail: [email protected]

Affiliation Clinical Informatics Research Unit, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom

Roles Data curation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Department of Community Medicine, International Medical School, Management and Science University, Shah Alam, Malaysia, Department of Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, Asia Metropolitan University, Johor Bahru, Malaysia, Global Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department of Psychiatry, Faculty of Medicine, University of Cyberjaya, Cyberjaya, Malaysia

Roles Conceptualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliation Department: School of Criminal Justice Education, Institution: J.H. Cerilles State College, Caridad, Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur, Philippines

Roles Conceptualization, Data curation, Supervision, Validation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing

Affiliations Global Public Health, Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia, South East Asia Community Observatory (SEACO), Jeffrey Cheah School of Medicine and Health Sciences, Monash University Malaysia, Bandar Sunway, Malaysia

• Ken Brackstone, 
• Roy R. Marzo, 
• Rafidah Bahari, 
• Michael G. Head, 
• Mark E. Patalinghug, 

• Published: October 19, 2022
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000742
• Peer Review
• Reader Comments

With the emergence of the highly transmissible Omicron variant, large-scale vaccination coverage is crucial to the national and global pandemic response, especially in populous Southeast Asian countries such as the Philippines and Malaysia where new information is often received digitally. The main aims of this research were to determine levels of hesitancy and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among general adults in the Philippines and Malaysia, and to identify individual, behavioural, or environmental predictors significantly associated with these outcomes. Data from an internet-based cross-sectional survey of 2558 participants from the Philippines ( N = 1002) and Malaysia ( N = 1556) were analysed. Results showed that Filipino (56.6%) participants exhibited higher COVID-19 hesitancy than Malaysians (22.9%; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences in ratings of confidence between Filipino (45.9%) and Malaysian (49.2%) participants ( p = 0.105). Predictors associated with vaccine hesitancy among Filipino participants included women (OR, 1.50, 95% CI, 1.03–1.83; p = 0.030) and rural dwellers (OR, 1.44, 95% CI, 1.07–1.94; p = 0.016). Among Malaysian participants, vaccine hesitancy was associated with women (OR, 1.50, 95% CI, 1.14–1.99; p = 0.004), social media use (OR, 11.76, 95% CI, 5.71–24.19; p < 0.001), and online information-seeking behaviours (OR, 2.48, 95% CI, 1.72–3.58; p < 0.001). Predictors associated with vaccine confidence among Filipino participants included subjective social status (OR, 1.13, 95% CI, 1.54–1.22; p < 0.001), whereas vaccine confidence among Malaysian participants was associated with higher education (OR, 1.30, 95% CI, 1.03–1.66; p < 0.028) and negatively associated with rural dwellers (OR, 0.64, 95% CI, 0.47–0.87; p = 0.005) and online information-seeking behaviours (OR, 0.42, 95% CI, 0.31–0.57; p < 0.001). Efforts should focus on creating effective interventions to decrease vaccination hesitancy, increase confidence, and bolster the uptake of COVID-19 vaccination, particularly in light of the Dengvaxia crisis in the Philippines.

Citation: Brackstone K, Marzo RR, Bahari R, Head MG, Patalinghug ME, Su TT (2022) COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and confidence in the Philippines and Malaysia: A cross-sectional study of sociodemographic factors and digital health literacy. PLOS Glob Public Health 2(10): e0000742. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000742

Editor: Nnodimele Onuigbo Atulomah, Babcock University, NIGERIA

Received: June 12, 2022; Accepted: September 20, 2022; Published: October 19, 2022

Copyright: © 2022 Brackstone et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Data Availability: Data are available on the OSF repository: https://osf.io/ncwjq/ .

Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

While many high-income settings have achieved relatively high coverage with their COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, almost 32.1% of the world’s population have not received a single dose of any COVID-19 vaccine as of July 2022 [ 1 ]. The Philippines and Malaysia are among two of the most populous countries in Southeast Asia with an estimated population of 110 million and 32 million people, respectively. To date, Malaysia has seen over 4.6 million cases with a mortality rate of 0.77%, while approximately 3.7 million cases of COVID-19 were detected in the Philippines with a mortality rate of 1.60% [ 2 ]. Malaysia is doing considerably well with their vaccination efforts, with 84.8% of the population currently considered fully vaccinated as of July 2022. However, vaccination campaigns in the Philippines have been more difficult, with 65.6% of the population fully vaccinated [ 3 ]. With the emergence of the highly transmissible Omicron variant across the world [ 4 ], large-scale vaccination coverage remains fundamental to the national and global pandemic response. Regular scientific assessments of factors that may impede the success of COVID-19 vaccination coverage will be critical as vaccination campaigns continue in these nations.

A key factor for the success of vaccination campaigns is people’s willingness to be vaccinated once doses become accessible to them personally. Vaccine hesitancy is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as the delay in the acceptance, or blunt refusal of, vaccines. In fact, vaccine hesitancy was described by the WHO as one of the top 10 threats to global health in 2019 [ 5 ]. Conversely, vaccine confidence relates to individuals’ beliefs that vaccines are effective and safe. In general, a loss of trust in health authorities is a key determinant of vaccine confidence, with misconceptions about vaccine safety being among the most common reasons for low confidence in vaccines [ 6 ].

Previously, vaccination in Southeast Asia has been associated with mistrust and fear, particularly in the Philippines, who are still suffering the consequences of the Dengvaxia (dengue) vaccine controversy in 2017 [ 7 ]. Studies suggest that this highly political mainstream event, in which anti-vaccination campaigns linked dengue vaccines with autism spectrum disorder and with corrupt schemes of pharmaceutical companies, continue to erode the population’s trust in vaccines. For example, a survey conducted on over 30,000 Filipinos in early 2021 showed that 41% of respondents would refuse the COVID-19 vaccine once it became available, whereas Malaysia reported 27% hesitancy [ 8 ]. Researchers predict that the controversy surrounding Dengvaxia may have prompted severe medical mistrust and subsequently weakened the public’s attitudes toward vaccines [ 7 , 9 ]. However, there may be many additional factors that weaken confidence in vaccines. For example, incompatibility with religious beliefs is one key driver of weakened confidence in vaccines [ 10 , 11 ], whereas living in urbanised (vs. rural) areas predicts COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in some countries [ 12 – 14 ], possibly due to being more connected to the internet and social media and being more exposed to COVID-19-related misinformation.

Other predictors of vaccine hesitancy and confidence may include digital health literacy–one’s ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from digital resources–and social media use. Research has shown that beliefs in available information is integral to perceptions of the vaccine safety and effectiveness [ 15 – 17 ]. Previous studies, for example, have associated higher vaccine hesitancy with misinformation about the virus and vaccines, particularly if they relied on social media as a key source of information [ 18 , 19 ]. Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) is a widely accepted theory which may explain individual behaviors, including digital health literacy [ 20 ]. SCT consists of three factors–environmental, personal, and behavioural–and any two of these components interact with each other and influence the third. As such, SCT can assist in establishing a link between one’s behaviour (e.g., information-seeking–one form of digital health literacy) and environmental factors (e.g., availability of information online), which may interact to promote medical mistrust and influence vaccine hesitancy and confidence (personal) [ 21 ]. Thus, health behaviours are often influenced by social systems as well as personal behaviours.

Although vaccine hesitancy and confidence are related concepts (e.g., people who express low confidence in vaccines are more likely to be vaccine-hesitant [ 6 ]), they are also distinct [ 22 ]. Thus, the main aims of this research were to determine levels of hesitancy and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among general adults in the Philippines and Malaysia, and to identify behavioural or environmental predictors that are significantly associated with both outcomes. Thus, developing a deeper understanding of the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy and confidence will provide insight into how specific population groups may respond to health threats and public health control measures.

Design, subjects, and procedure

This was an internet-based cross-sectional survey conducted from May 2021 to September 2021 in the Philippines and Malaysia. Snowball sampling methods were used for the data collection using social media, including research networks of universities, hospitals, friends, and relatives. Filipino and Malaysian residents aged 18 years or older were invited to take part. The inclusion criteria for participants’ eligibility included 18 years or older, and an understanding of the English language. All invited participants consented to the online survey before completion. Consented participants could only respond to questions once using a single account. The voluntary survey contained a series of questions which assessed sociodemographic variables, social media use, digital literacy skills in health, and attitudes toward the COVID-19 vaccine.

Ethical approval

The study received ethical approval from Asia Metropolitan University’s Medical Research and Ethics Committee (Ref: AMU/FOM/MREC 0320210018). All participants provided informed consent. All study information was written and provided on the first page of the online questionnaire, and participants indicated consent by selecting the agreement box and proceeding to the survey.

Demographics.

Filipino and Malaysian participants indicated their age category (18–24, 25–34, or 35–44), gender (man, woman), community type (rural, urban), educational level (no formal education, primary, secondary, tertiary), employment (unemployed, part-time, full-time), religion (Christian, Buddhism, Muslim, Hinduism, Other, None), income (1 = very insufficient ; 4 = very sufficient ; M = 1.84, SD = 0.81), whether they were permanently impaired by a health problem (no vs. yes), and whether they were social media users (no vs. yes).

Subjective social status.

Participant then rated their own perceived social status using the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status scale [ 23 ]. Participants viewed a drawing of a ladder with 10 rungs, and read that the ladder represented where people stand in society. They read that the top of the ladder consists of people who are best off, have the most money, highest education, and best jobs, and those at the bottom of the ladder consists of people who are worst off, have the least money, lowest education, and worst or no jobs. Using a validated single-item measure, participants placed an ‘X’ on the rung that best represented where they think they stood on the ladder (1 = lowest ; 10 = highest; M = 6.23, SD = 1.86).

Vaccine confidence and hesitancy.

Participants were also asked about their perceived level of confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine (“I am completely confident that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe,” 1 = strongly disagree ; 7 = strongly agree; M = 4.57, SD = 1.48). Then, participants were asked about their level of hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine (“I think everyone should be vaccinated according to the national vaccination schedule”; no, I don’t know, yes). These questions were adapted from the World Health Organization, Regional Office for Europe survey [ 24 ]. The tool underwent evaluation by multidisciplinary panel of experts for necessity, clarity, and relevance.

Digital health literacy.

Finally, participants completed the Digital Health Literacy Instrument (DHLI) [ 25 ], which was adapted in the context of the COVID-HL Network. The scale measures one’s ability to seek, find, understand, and appraise health information from digital resources. A total of 12 items (three per each dimension) were asked, and answers were recorded on a four-point Likert scale (1 = very difficult ; 4 = very easy; α = .92; M = 2.15, SD = 0.59). While the original DHLI is comprised of 7 subscales, we used the following four domains, including: (1) information searching or using appropriate strategies to look for information (e.g., “When you search the internet for information on coronavirus virus or related topics, how easy or difficult is it for you to find the exact information you are looking for?”; α = .87; M = 2.15, SD = 0.65), (2) adding self-generated content to online-based platforms (e.g., “When typing a message on a forum or social media such as Facebook or Twitter about the coronavirus a related topic, how easy or difficult is it for you to express your opinion, thought, or feelings in writing?”; α = .74; M = 2.15, SD = 0.65), (3) evaluating reliability of online information (e.g., “When you search the internet for information on the coronavirus or related topics, how easy or difficult is it for you to decide whether the information is reliable or not?”; α = .86; M = 2.20, SD = 0.69), and (4) determining relevance of online information (e.g., “When you search the internet for information on the coronavirus or related topics, how easy or difficult is it for you to use the information you found to make decisions about your health [e.g., protective measures, hygiene regulations, transmission routes, risks and their prevention?”]; α = .87; M = 2.09, SD = 0.68). The reliability statistics for the overall DHL score was 0.92, while the alpha coefficients for the four subscales ranged from 0.74 to 0.87, suggesting acceptable to good internal consistency.

Data analysis

Data were examined for errors, cleaned, and exported into IBM SPSS Statistics 28 for further analysis. All hypotheses were tested at a significance level of 0.05. χ 2 tests were conducted for group differences of categorical variables, and Mann-Whitney tests for continuous variables. Subgroup analyses were performed for Filipino and Malaysian participants.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and confidence were treated as separate dependent variables in a logistic regression model providing the strictest test of potential associations with COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and confidence among Filipino and Malaysian participants. Low vaccine confidence was operationalised by dichotomising participants’ responses to the statement: “I am completely confident that the COVID-19 vaccine is safe” into those who disagreed or neither agreed nor disagreed (1–4), whereas high vaccine confidence was operationalised by dichotomising participants’ responses into those who agreed to some extent (5–7). Vaccine hesitancy was operationalised by dichotomising responses to the statement: “I think everyone should be vaccinated according to the National vaccination schedule” into those indicating ‘no’ or ‘I don’t know,’ whereas no vaccine hesitancy was operationalized by dichotomising participants’ response into those who indicated ‘yes.’

Independent variables were: age (18–24 vs. 25–34 vs. 35–44 [ref]), gender (women vs. men [ref]), community type (rural vs. urban [ref]), educational level (tertiary vs. secondary or less [ref]), employment (employed to some degree vs. unemployed [ref]), religion (Philippines: Christianity vs. Islam [ref]; Malaysia: Christianity vs. Buddhism vs. Hinduism vs. Islam [ref]), income (low (1–2) vs. high (3–4 [ref])), whether they were permanently impaired by a health problem (yes vs. no [ref]), whether they were social media users [yes vs. no [ref]), their perceived ranking on the MacArthur Scale of Subjective Social Status (continuous variable), and finally the four domains of the DHLI scale (all continuous variables).

A total of 2558 participants completed the online survey. Table 1 shows descriptive statistics of participants from the Philippines ( N = 1002) vs. Malaysia ( N = 1556). Filipino (vs. Malaysian) participants indicated higher rates of education ( p < 0.001), but were more likely to be unemployed ( p < 0.001). Further, Filipino (vs. Malaysian) participants were also more likely to indicate lower income ( p < 0.001) and rate themselves lower on subjective social status ( p < 0.001). Malaysian (vs. Filipino) participants were more likely to live in urban areas ( p < 0.001). Most notably, Filipino participants (56.6%) indicated higher prevalence of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy compared to Malaysian participants (22.9%; p < 0.001). However, there were no significant differences between Filipino (45.9%) and Malaysian (49.2%) participants in ratings of vaccine confidence ( p = 0.105). Malaysian (vs. Filipino) participants were also more likely to report using social media (96.6 vs. 89.8%; < 0.001).

• PPT PowerPoint slide
• PNG larger image
• TIFF original image

Values are presented as percent (n) or means ± SD.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000742.t001

Table 2 shows significant predictors of vaccine hesitancy in both Filipino and Malaysian samples. Among Filipino participants, multivariate logistic regression analyses revealed that factors associated with higher vaccine hesitancy included women (OR, 1.51, 95% CI, 1.14–2.00; p = 0.004), residing in a rural community (OR, 1.45, 95% CI, 1.07–1.95; p = 0.015), and having lower income (OR, 1.62, 95% CI, 1.20–2.19; p = 0.001). Among Malaysian participants, women (OR, 1.51, 95% CI, 1.14–2.00; p = 0.004), being aged 25–34 (vs. 18–24; OR, 1.52, 95% CI, 1.48–2.21; p = 0.027), Christians (OR, 2.45, 95% CI, 1.66–3.62; p < 0.001), completing tertiary education (OR, 2.17, 95% CI, 1.63–2.88; p < 0.001), social media use (OR, 11.59, 95% CI, 5.63–23.84; p < 0.001), and information-seeking behaviours (OR, 2.50, 95% CI, 1.74–3.61; p < 0.001) were predictors of higher vaccine hesitancy, whereas having a health impairment (OR, 0.49, 95% CI, 0.30–0.78; p = 0.003) and higher self-reported ratings on subjective social status (OR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.75–0.89; p < 0.001) were associated with lower vaccine hesitancy.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000742.t002

Table 3 shows significant predictors of vaccine confidence in both Filipino and Malaysian samples. Factors positively associated with higher vaccine confidence among Filipino participants included higher self-reported ratings on subjective social status (OR, 1.16, 95% CI, 1.07–1.25; p < 0.001), whereas factors associated with lower vaccine confidence included women (OR, 0.72, 95% CI, 0.54–0.96; p = 0.026) and information-seeking behaviours (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.49–0.81; p < 0.001). Among Malaysian participants, factors positively associated with higher vaccine confidence included women (OR, 1.27, 95% CI, 1.18–1.60; p = 0.035), completing tertiary education (OR, 1.31, 95% CI, 1.03–1.66; p = 0.026), and higher self-reported ratings on subjective social status (OR, 1.08, 95% CI, 1.00–1.16; p = 0.036). Factors negatively associated with lower vaccine confidence included residing in a rural community (OR, 0.63, 95% CI, 0.47–0.87; p = 0.004), Christians (OR, 0.50, 95% CI, 1.20–2.24; p < 0.001), Buddhists (OR, 0.15., 95% CI, 0.10–0.22; p < 0.001), Hindus (OR, 0.24., 95% CI, 0.17–0.34; p = 0.004), information-seeking behaviours (OR, 0.42, 95% CI, 0.31–0.58; p < 0.001), and determining relevance of online information (OR, 0.68, 95% CI, 0.51–0.92; p = 0.013).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000742.t003

Malaysia and the Philippines are among the most populous countries in Southeast Asia. While the economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic has been permanent in the Philippines, it has been shown thus far to be temporary in Malaysia [ 26 ]. Between January and October 2020, around 30,000 Malaysians had been infected by the virus with a mortality rate of 0.79%, while approximately 380,000 cases of COVID-19 were detected in the Philippines with a mortality rate of 1.9% [ 2 ]. Further, 61.8% of Malaysians had completed their vaccination up until September 2021, while the percentage of completed vaccinations during the same period in the Philippines was only 19.2% [ 27 ]. Vaccine uptake is likely to be a key determining factor in the outcome of a pandemic. Knowledge around factors which predict vaccine hesitancy and confidence is of the utmost important in order to improve vaccination rates. Thus, the core aims of this research were to determine levels of hesitancy and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among general adults in the Philippines and Malaysia, and to identify behavioural or environmental predictors that are significantly associated with these outcomes.

First, while there were no significant differences in ratings of confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine between Filipino and Malaysian participants, Filipino (compared to Malaysian) participants expressed greater vaccine hesitancy. This may be a consequence of previous vaccine scares in the years leading up to the pandemic, including the Dengvaxia controversy in 2016 [ 7 , 9 ]. Systematic reviews demonstrated that, by the end of 2020, the highest vaccine acceptance was in China, Malaysia, and Indonesia [ 28 , 29 ]. The authors postulated that this elevated awareness was due to being among the first countries affected by the virus, hence resulting in greater confidence in vaccines [ 28 ].

Next, this study shows that women expressed greater vaccine hesitancy in both countries. The evidence base shows mixed findings, with other studies reporting higher hesitancy in women [ 30 ] or in men [ 31 ]. In some countries, the gender gap is not as substantial as others. In a large global study conducted in countries such as Russia and the United States, it was found that there is greater gender gap in vaccine hesitancy among men and women compared to countries such as Nepal and Sierra Leone [ 32 , 33 ]. Unsurprisingly, what drives this hesitancy is the inclusion of pregnant women, where studies have consistently demonstrated that this population is more hesitant toward vaccination due to concerns for their babies [ 34 ]. Hence, after taking all consideration into account, gender differences in vaccine hesitancy cannot be supported with certainty. This also emphasises the need for tailored health promotion towards the key populations at risk.

There are clear differences in predictors of vaccine hesitancy in the Philippines and Malaysia. However, when results for both countries were combined, women, urban dwellers, those of Christian faith, those with higher educational attainment, higher self-reported social class, social media use, and information-seeking tendencies remained as predictors of hesitancy. Urban-dwellers and individuals with more years of education have previously been demonstrated as predictors for vaccine hesitancy [ 35 ], but contradictory results have also previously been shown [ 36 , 37 ]. Urban residents are typically more connected to the internet and social media and, thus, may be more exposed to vaccine-related misinformation than rural inhabitants who have fewer sources of information available to them [ 12 – 14 ]. Nevertheless, reports have shown higher vaccine refusals among those with strong religious beliefs such as the Amish Community in the United States and the Orthodox Protestants in the Netherlands [ 38 ], as well as some Muslim groups in Pakistan [ 18 ].

Frequent social media use is the only strong predictor for vaccine hesitancy in this study, followed by information-seeking behaviours. Research has identified that the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine is the primary concern that people have, including beliefs in available information [ 15 – 17 ]. Unfortunately, high internet literacy is a double-edged sword, since participants in this study preferred to seek information through social media, and thus may have been exposed to inaccurate information regarding COVID-19 vaccine. Previous studies have associated higher vaccine hesitancy with misinformation about the virus and vaccines [ 18 ], particularly if they relied heavily on social media as a key source of vaccine-related information [ 19 ]. A 2022 systematic review discovered that high social media use is the main driver of vaccine hesitancy across all countries around the globe, and is especially prominent in Asia [ 39 ]. Furthermore, vaccine acceptance and uptake improved among those who obtained their information from healthcare providers compared to relatives or the internet [ 40 ].

In terms of vaccine confidence, our findings show that those with higher subjective social status have higher confidence in vaccination, consistent with previous studies describing how those with a higher income had expressed willingness to pay for their COVID-19 vaccination if necessary [ 32 , 41 , 42 ]. Further, those of Christian, Buddhist, and Hindu faiths, as well as those with a tendency to seek out information, were associated with lower vaccine confidence. This is in keeping with the previous findings demonstrating that strong religious convictions are often tied to mistrust of authorities and beliefs about the cause of the COVID-19 pandemic, which is fuelled by social media [ 43 ]. Furthermore, concern on the permissibility of these vaccines in their religion reduces its acceptability [ 10 ]. However, it is interesting to note that, while the majority in Malaysia are Muslims, it did not reduce the rate of vaccine acceptance and confidence in the country.

These findings have important implications for health authorities and governments in areas focusing on improving vaccination uptake. Misinformation about vaccination greatly hampers vaccination efforts. Thus, not only is it important to understand how specific population groups are influenced by digital platforms such as social media, but it is imperative to provide the right information driven by governmental and non-governmental organisations [ 39 ]. This could be achieved by having community-specific public education and role modelling from local health and public officials, which has been shown to increase public trust [ 44 ]. Since the primary reason for hesitancy is concern about the safety of vaccines, it is crucial that education programmes stress the effectiveness and importance of COVID-19 vaccinations [ 45 ]. Participants in this study coped with the pandemic by seeking out new information, but they sought information from social media when information from the authorities was lacking or were viewed as untrustworthy, which may have contained erroneous information. One way to deter this is to empower information-technology companies to monitor vaccine-related materials on social media, remove false information, and create correct and responsible content [ 44 ].

Furthermore, behavioural change techniques have been found to be useful in stressing the consequences of rejecting the vaccine on physical and mental health [ 46 ]. The most effective “nudging” interventions included offering incentives for parents and healthcare workers, providing salient information, and employing trusted figures to deliver this information [ 47 ]. Finally, since religious concerns have been prominent in reducing vaccine confidence and increasing hesitancy in this study, it is important to tailor messages to include information related to religion, and the use of religious leaders to spread these messages [ 48 ]. These are all important factors for increasing uptake of the COVID-19 vaccine, but also may be relevant in acceptability of routine immunisations as countries look to transition towards a post-pandemic delivery of healthcare.

A limitation of this study includes its cross-sectional design and the heterogeneity among participants, which meant that temporal changes in attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccines across time were not captured. Further, the need for internet access among Filipino and Malaysian participants limited the representativeness of the sample population. Thus, certain demographic were under-represented, including Filipino and Malaysian individuals over the age of 45, and people of lower socio-economic status. The surveys were also implemented in English, which may have limited the participation of target participants who were not fluent in English. In addition, due to space limitations, vaccine hesitancy and confidence were each captured using one item, which raises concerns of the items’ validity and reliability. Finally, not all independent variables were accounted for, including medical mistrust [ 49 ], vaccine knowledge [ 50 ], and specific social media platforms used [ 11 ]. We also did not assess whether participants had received any doses of the COVID-19 vaccine previously. Future research should include more important predictors to build a broader picture of vaccine-related hesitancy and confidence in the Philippines and Malaysia, and more items should be utilised to tap into these concepts more comprehensively. Despite these limitations, the core strength of this study relates to its relatively large number of participants from both countries, and its comprehensive analysis of predictors to provide as a starting point going forward.

Conclusions

The main aims of this research were to determine levels of hesitancy and confidence in COVID-19 vaccines among unvaccinated individuals in the Philippines and Malaysia, and to identify predictors significantly associated with these outcomes. Predictors of vaccine hesitancy in this study included the use of social media, information-seeking, and Christianity. Higher socioeconomic status positively predicted vaccine confidence. However, being Christian, Buddhist or Hindu, and the tendency to seek information online, were predictors of hesitancy. Efforts to improve uptake of COVID-19 vaccination must be centred upon providing accurate information to specific communities using local authorities, health services and other locally-trusted voices (such as religious leaders), and for the masses through social media. Further studies should focus on the development of locally-tailored health promotion strategies to improve vaccination confidence and increase the uptake of vaccination–especially in light of the Dengvaxia crisis in the Philippines.

Supporting information

S1 file. inclusivity in global research questionnaire..

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgph.0000742.s001

• 1. Ritchie H, Mathieu E, Rodés-Guirao L, Appel C, Giattino C, Ortiz-Ospina E, et al. Coronavirus pandemic. Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Available from https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations .
• View Article
• PubMed/NCBI
• Google Scholar
• 3. Ritchie H, Mathieu E, Rodés-Guirao L, Appel C, Giattino C,Ortiz-Ospina E, et al. Philippines: Coronavirus pandemic country profile. Published online at OurWorldinData.org. Available from https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus/country/philippines .
• 9. Mendoza RU, Valenzuela, S, Dayrit, M. A Crisis of Confidence: The Case of Dengvaxia in the Philippines. SSRN: doi: 10.2139/ssrn.3519736.

University of the Philippines

Population institute, you are here.

The University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI) in collaboration with the Demographic Research and Development Foundation (DRDF) are sharing results of their demographic studies to provide the Philippine context on the possible effects of the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic. In both the UPPI and DRDF websites, we are publishing a series of research briefs focusing on various aspects of Filipino lives that are affected by COVID-19, in both the short and long terms.

#1: COVID-19 and the Older Filipino Population How Many Are at Risk?

#2: COVID-19 and the Economic Vulnerability of Older Filipinos

#3: Promoting hand washing in the time of the COVID-19 pandemic

#4: Reliable data needed to address COVID-19

#5: “Balik Probinsya” in time of COVID-19

#6: Moving Force: Factors Affecting Mobility of Filipinos

#7: The changing demographics of COVID-19 infections and deaths in the Philippines: how age-sex structure, living arrangement, and family ties intersect

#8: Human Resource for Health in the Time of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Does the Philippines Have Enough?

#9: Vaccinating the most vulnerable group in the time of pandemic: Insights from a national survey of older people

Tel. No.: +63 2 8981 8500 local 2457 / 2468 E-mail: [email protected]

3/F Palma Hall, Roxas Avenue, University of the Philippines, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines 1101

Facebook | Twitter | YouTube

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

Impact of the covid-19 pandemic on physical and mental health in lower and upper middle-income asian countries: a comparison between the philippines and china.

• 1 College of Medicine, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines
• 2 Faculty of Education, Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience, Huaibei Normal University, Huaibei, China
• 3 Department of Psychological Medicine, Yong Loo Lin School of Medicine, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore
• 4 Southeast Asia One Health University Network, Chiang Mai, Thailand
• 5 Department of Psychological Medicine, National University Health System, Singapore, Singapore
• 6 Institute of Health Innovation and Technology (iHealthtech), National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore

Objective: The differences between the physical and mental health of people living in a lower-middle-income country (LMIC) and upper-middle-income country (UMIC) during the COVID-19 pandemic was unknown. This study aimed to compare the levels of psychological impact and mental health between people from the Philippines (LMIC) and China (UMIC) and correlate mental health parameters with variables relating to physical symptoms and knowledge about COVID-19.

Methods: The survey collected information on demographic data, physical symptoms, contact history, and knowledge about COVID-19. The psychological impact was assessed using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R), and mental health status was assessed by the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21).

Findings: The study population included 849 participants from 71 cities in the Philippines and 861 participants from 159 cities in China. Filipino (LMIC) respondents reported significantly higher levels of depression, anxiety, and stress than Chinese (UMIC) during the COVID-19 ( p < 0.01) while only Chinese respondents' IES-R scores were above the cut-off for PTSD symptoms. Filipino respondents were more likely to report physical symptoms resembling COVID-19 infection ( p < 0.05), recent use of but with lower confidence on medical services ( p < 0.01), recent direct and indirect contact with COVID ( p < 0.01), concerns about family members contracting COVID-19 ( p < 0.001), dissatisfaction with health information ( p < 0.001). In contrast, Chinese respondents requested more health information about COVID-19. For the Philippines, student status, low confidence in doctors, dissatisfaction with health information, long daily duration spent on health information, worries about family members contracting COVID-19, ostracization, and unnecessary worries about COVID-19 were associated with adverse mental health. Physical symptoms and poor self-rated health were associated with adverse mental health in both countries ( p < 0.05).

Conclusion: The findings of this study suggest the need for widely available COVID-19 testing in MIC to alleviate the adverse mental health in people who present with symptoms. A health education and literacy campaign is required in the Philippines to enhance the satisfaction of health information.

Introduction

The World Health Organization (WHO) declared coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) to be a Public Health Emergency of International Concern on January 30 ( 1 ) and a pandemic on March 11, 2020 ( 2 ). COVID-19 predominantly presents with respiratory symptoms (cough, sneezing, and sore throat), along with fever, fatigue and myalgia. It is thought to spread through droplets, contaminated surfaces, and asymptomatic individuals ( 3 ). By the end of April, over 3 million people have been infected globally ( 4 ).

The first country to identify the novel virus as the cause of the pandemic was China. The authorities responded with unprecedented restrictions on movement. The response included stopping public transport before Chinese New Year, an annual event that sees workers' mass emigration to their hometowns, and a lockdown of whole cities and regions ( 1 ). Two new hospitals specifically designed for COVID-19 patients were rapidly built in Wuhan. Such measures help slow the transmission of COVID-19 in China. As of May 2, there are 83,959 confirmed cases and 4,637 deaths from the virus in China ( 4 ). The Philippines was also affected early by the current crisis. The first case was suspected on January 22, and the country reported the first death from COVID-19 outside of mainland China ( 5 ). Similar to China, the Philippines implemented lockdowns in Manila. Other measures included the closure of schools and allowing arrests for non-compliance with measures ( 6 ). At the beginning of May, the Philippines recorded 8,772 cases and 579 deaths ( 4 ).

China was one of the more severely affected countries in Asia in the early stage of pandemic ( 7 ) while the Philippines is still experiencing an upward trend in the COVID-19 cases ( 6 ). The gross national income (GNI) per capita of the Philippines and China are USD 3,830 and 9,460, respectively, were classified with lower (LMIC) and upper-middle-income countries (UMIC) by the Worldbank ( 8 ). During the COVID-19 pandemic, five high-income countries (HIC), including the United States, Italy, the United Kingdom, Spain, and France, account for 70% of global deaths ( 9 ). The HIC faced the following challenges: (1) the lack of personal protection equipment (PPE) for healthcare workers; (2) the delay in response strategy; (3) an overstretched healthcare system with the shortage of hospital beds, and (4) a large number of death cases from nursing homes ( 10 ). The COVID-19 crisis threatens to hit lower and middle-income countries due to lockdown excessively and economic recession ( 11 ). A systematic review on mental health in LMIC in Asia and Africa found that LMIC: (1) do not have enough mental health professionals; (2) the negative economic impact led to an exacerbation of mental issues; (3) there was a scarcity of COVID-19 related mental health research in Asian LMIC ( 12 ). This systematic review could not compare participants from different middle-income countries because each study used different questionnaires. During the previous Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, the promotion of protective personal health practices to reduce transmission of the SARS virus was found to reduce the anxiety levels in the community ( 13 ).

Before COVID-19, previous studies found that stress might be a modifiable risk factor for depression in LMICs ( 14 ) and UMICs ( 15 – 17 ). Another study involving thirty countries found that unmodifiable risk factors for depression included female gender, and depression became more common in 2004 to 2014 compared to previous periods ( 18 ). Further, there were cultural differences in terms of patient-doctor relationship and attitudes toward healthcare systems before the COVID-19 pandemic. In China, <20% of the general public and medical professionals view the doctor and patient relationship as harmonious ( 19 ). In contrast, Filipino seemed to have more trust and be compliant to doctors' recommendations ( 20 ). Patient satisfaction was more important than hospital quality improvement to maintain patient loyalty to the Chinese healthcare system ( 21 ). For Filipinos, improvement in the quality of healthcare service was found to improve patients' satisfaction ( 22 ).

Based on the above studies, we have the following research questions: (1) whether COVID-19 pandemic could be an important stressor and risk factor for depression for the people living in LMIC and UMIC ( 23 ), (2) Are physical symptoms that resemble COVID-19 infection and other concerns be risk factors for adverse mental health? (3) Are knowledge of COVID-19 and health information protective factors for mental health? (4) Would there be any cultural differences in attitudes toward doctors and healthcare systems during the pandemic between China and the Philippines? We hypothesized that UMIC (China) would have better physical and mental health than LMIC (the Philippines). The aims of this study were (a) to compare the physical and mental health between citizens from an LMIC (the Philippines) and UMIC (China); (b) to correlate psychological impact, depression, anxiety, and stress scores with variables relating to physical symptoms, knowledge, and concerns about COVID-19 in people living in the Philippines (LMIC) and China (UMIC).

Study Design and Study Population

We conducted a cross-cultural and quantitative study to compare Filipinos' physical and mental health with Chinese during the COVID-19 pandemic. The study was conducted from February 28 to March 1 in China and March 28 to April 7, 2020 in the Philippines, when the number of COVID-19 daily reported cases increased in both countries. The Chinese participants were recruited from 159 cities and 27 provinces. The Filipino participants, on the other hand, were recruited from 71 cities and 40 provinces representing the Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao archipelago. A respondent-driven recruitment strategy was utilized in both countries. The recruitment started with a set of initial respondents who were associated with the Huaibei Normal University of China and the University of the Philippines Manila; who referred other participants by email and social network; these in turn refer other participants across different cities in China and the Philippines.

As both Chinese and Filipino governments recommended that the public minimize face-to-face interaction and isolate themselves during the study period, new respondents were electronically invited by existing study respondents. The respondents completed the questionnaires through an online survey platform (“SurveyStar,” Changsha Ranxing Science and Technology in China and Survey Monkey Online Survey in the Philippines). The Institutional Review Board of the University of Philippines Manila Research Ethics Board (UPMREB 2020-198-01) and Huaibei Normal University (China) approved the research proposal (HBU-IRB-2020-002). All respondents provided informed or implied consent. The collected data were anonymous and treated as confidential.

This study used the National University of Singapore COVID-19 questionnaire, and its psychometric properties had been established in the initial phase of the COVID-19 epidemic ( 24 ). The National University of Singapore COVID-19 questionnaire consisted of questions that covered several areas: (1) demographic data; (2) physical symptoms related to COVID-19 in the past 14 days; (3) contact history with COVID-19 in the past 14 days; and (4) knowledge and concerns about COVID-19.

Demographic data about age, gender, education, household size, marital status, parental status, and residential city in the past 14 days were collected. Physical symptoms related to COVID-19 included breathing difficulty, chills, coryza, cough, dizziness, fever, headache, myalgia, sore throat, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea. Respondents also rated their physical health status and stated their history of chronic medical illness. In the past 14 days, health service utilization variables included consultation with a doctor in the clinic, being quarantined by the health authority, recent testing for COVID-19 and medical insurance coverage. Knowledge and concerns related to COVID-19 included knowledge about the routes of transmission, level of confidence in diagnosis, source, and level of satisfaction of health information about COVID-19, the likelihood of contracting and surviving COVID-19 and the number of hours spent on viewing information about COVID-19 per day.

The psychological impact of COVID-19 was measured using the Impact of Event Scale-Revised (IES-R). The IES-R is a self-administered questionnaire that has been well-validated in the European and Asian population for determining the extent of psychological impact after exposure to a traumatic event (i.e., the COVID-19 pandemic) within one week of exposure ( 25 , 26 ). This 22-item questionnaire, composed of three subscales, aims to measure the mean avoidance, intrusion, and hyperarousal ( 27 ). The total IES-R score is divided into 0–23 (normal), 24–32 (mild psychological impact), 33–36 (moderate psychological impact) and >37 (severe psychological impact) ( 28 ). The total IES-R score > 24 suggests the presence of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms ( 29 ).

The respondents' mental health status was measured using the Depression, Anxiety, and Stress Scale (DASS-21) and the calculation of scores was based on a previous Asian study ( 30 ). DASS has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measure in assessing mental health in Filipinos ( 31 – 33 ) and Chinese ( 34 , 35 ). IES-R and DASS-21 were previously used in research related to the COVID-19 epidemic ( 26 , 36 – 38 ).

Statistical Analysis

Descriptive statistics were calculated for demographic characteristics, physical symptom, and health service utilization variables, contact history variables, knowledge and concern variables, precautionary measure variables, and additional health information variables. To analyze the differences in the levels of psychological impact, levels of depression, anxiety and stress, the independent sample t -test was used to compare the mean score between the Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) respondents. The chi-squared test was used to analyze the differences in categorical variables between the two samples. We used linear regressions to calculate the univariate associations between independent and dependent variables, including the IES-S score and DASS stress, anxiety, and depression subscale scores for the Filipino and Chinese respondents separately with adjustment for age, marital status, and education levels. All tests were two-tailed, with a significance level of p < 0.05. Statistical analysis was performed on SPSS Statistic 21.0.

Demographic Characteristics and Their Association With Psychological Impact and Adverse Mental Health Status

We received 849 responses from the Philippines and 861 responses from China for 1,710 individual respondents from both countries. The majority of Filipino respondents were women (71.0%), age between 22 and 30 years (26.6%), having a household size of 3–5 people (53.4%), high educational attainment (91.4% with a bachelor or higher degree), and married (68.9%). Similarly, the majority of Chinese respondents were women (75%), having a household size of 3–5 people (80.4%) and high educational attainment (91.4% with a bachelor or higher degree). There was a significantly higher proportion of Chinese respondents who had children younger than 16 years ( p < 0.001) and student status ( p < 0.001; See Table 1 ).

Table 1 . Comparison of demographic characteristics between Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) respondents ( N = 1,710).

For Filipino respondents, the male gender and having a child were protective factors significantly associated with the lower score of IES-R ( p < 0.05) and depression ( p < 0.001), respectively. Single status was significantly associated with depression ( p < 0.05), and student status was associated with higher IES-R, stress and depression scores ( p < 0.01) (see Table 2 ). For Chinese respondents, the male gender was significantly associated with a lower score of IES-R but higher DASS depression scores ( p < 0.01). Notwithstanding, there were other differences between Filipino and China respondents. Chinese respondents who stayed in a household with 3–5 people ( p < 0.05) and more than 6 people ( p < 0.05) were significantly associated with a higher score of IES-R as compared to respondents who stayed alone.

Table 2 . Comparison of the association between demographic variables and the psychological impact as well as adverse mental health status between Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) respondents ( n = 1,710).

Comparison Between the Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) Respondents and Their Mental Health Status

Figure 1 compares the mean scores of DASS-stress, anxiety, and depression subscales and IES-R scores between the Filipino and Chinese respondents. For the DASS-stress subscale, Filipino respondents reported significantly higher stress ( p < 0.001), anxiety ( p < 0.01), and depression ( p < 0.01) than Chinese (UMIC). For IES-R, Filipino (LMIC) had significantly lower scores than Chinese ( p < 0.001). The mean IES-R scores of Chinese were higher than 24 points, indicating the presence of PTSD symptoms in Chinese respondents only.

Figure 1 . Comparison of the mean scores of DASS-stress, anxiety and depression subscales, and IES-R scores between Filipino and Chinese respondents.

Physical Symptoms, Health Status, and Its Association With Psychological Impact and Adverse Mental Health Status

There were significant differences between Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) respondents regarding physical symptoms resembling COVID-19 and health status. There was a significantly higher proportion of Filipino respondents who reported headache ( p < 0.001), myalgia ( p < 0.001), cough ( p < 0.001), breathing difficulty ( p < 0.001), dizziness ( p < 0.05), coryza ( p < 0.001), sore throat ( p < 0.001), nausea and vomiting ( p < 0.001), recent consultation with a doctor ( p < 0.01), recent hospitalization ( p < 0.001), chronic illness ( p < 0.001), direct ( p < 0.001), and indirect ( p < 0.001) contact with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 as compared to Chinese (see Supplementary Table 1 ). Significantly more Chinese respondents were under quarantine ( p < 0.001).

Linear regression showed that headache, myalgia, cough, dizziness, coryza as well as poor self-rated physical health were significantly associated with higher IES-R scores, DASS-21 stress, anxiety, and depression subscale scores in both countries after adjustment for confounding factors ( p < 0.05; see Table 3 ). Furthermore, breathing difficulty, sore throat, and gastrointestinal symptoms were significantly associated with higher DASS-21 stress, anxiety and depression subscale scores in both countries ( p < 0.05). Chills were significantly associated with higher DASS-21 stress and depression scores ( p < 0.01) in both countries. Recent quarantine was associated with higher DASS-21 subscale scores in Chinese respondents only ( p < 0.05).

Table 3 . Association between physical health status and contact history and the perceived impact of COVID-19 outbreak as well as adverse mental health status during the epidemic after adjustment for age, gender, and marital status ( n = 1,710).

Perception, Knowledge, and Concerns About COVID-19 and Its Association With Psychological Impact and Adverse Mental Health Status

Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) respondents held significantly different perceptions in terms of knowledge and concerns related to COVID-19 (see Supplementary Table 2 ). For the routes of transmission, there were significantly more Filipino respondents who agreed that droplets transmitted the COVID-19 ( p < 0.001) and contact via contaminated objects ( p < 0.001), but significantly more Chinese agreed with the airborne transmission ( p < 0.001). For the detection and risk of contracting COVID-19, there were significantly more Filipino who were not confident about their doctor's ability to diagnose COVID-19 ( p < 0.001). There were significantly more Filipino respondents who were worried about their family members contracting COVID-19 ( p < 0.001). For health information, there were significantly more Filipino who were unsatisfied with the amount of health information ( p < 0.001) and spent more than three hours per day on the news related to COVID-19 ( p < 0.001). There were significantly more Chinese respondents who felt ostracized by other countries ( p < 0.001).

Linear regression analysis after adjustment of confounding factors showed that the Filipino and Chinese respondents showed different findings (see Table 4 ). Chinese respondents who reported a very low perceived likelihood of contracting COVID-19 were significantly associated with lower DASS depression scores ( p < 0.05). There were similarities between the two countries. Filipino and Chinese respondents who perceived a very high likelihood of survival were significantly associated with lower DASS-21 depression scores ( p < 0.05). Regarding the level of confidence in the doctor's ability to diagnose COVID-19, both Filipino and Chinese respondents who were very confident in their doctors were significantly associated with lower DASS-21 depression scores ( p < 0.01). Filipino and Chinese respondents who were satisfied with health information were significantly associated with lower DASS-21 anxiety and depression scores ( p < 0.01). Chinese and Filipino respondents who were worried about their family members contracting COVID-19 were associated with higher IES-R and DASS-21 subscale scores ( p < 0.05). In contrast, only Filipino respondents who spent <1 h per day monitoring COVID-19 information was significantly associated with lower IES-R and DASS-21 stress and anxiety scores ( p < 0.05). Filipino respondents who felt ostracized were associated with higher IES-R and stress scores ( p < 0.05).

Table 4 . Comparison of association of knowledge and concerns related to COVID-19 with mental health status after adjustment for age, gender, and marital status ( N = 1,710).

Health Information About COVID-19 and Its Association With Psychological Impact and Adverse Mental Health Status

Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) respondents held significantly different views on the information required about COVID-19. There were significantly more Chinese respondents who needed information on the symptoms related to COVID-19, prevention methods, management and treatment methods, regular information updates, more personalized information, the effectiveness of drugs and vaccines, number of infected by geographical locations, travel advice and transmission methods as compared to Filipino ( p < 0.01; See Supplementary Table 3 ). In contrast, there were significantly more Filipino respondents who needed information on other countries' strategies and responses than Chinese ( p < 0.001).

Information on management methods and transmission methods were significantly associated with higher IES-R scores in Chinese respondents ( p < 0.05; see Table 5 ). Travel advice, local transmission data, and other countries' responses were significantly associated with lower DASS-21 stress and depression scores in Chinese respondents only ( p < 0.05). There was only one significant association observed in Filipino respondents; information on transmission methods was significantly associated with lower DASS-21 depression scores ( p < 0.05).

Table 5 . Comparison of the association between information needs about COVID-19 and the psychological impact as well as adverse mental health status between Filipino (LMIC) and Chinese (UMIC) participants after adjustment for age, gender, and marital status ( N = 1,710).

To our best knowledge, this is the first study that compared the physical and mental health as well as knowledge, attitude and belief about COVID-19 between citizens from an LMIC (The Philippines) and UMIC (China). Filipino respondents reported significantly higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress than Chinese during the COVID-19, but only the mean IES-R scores of Chinese respondents were above the cut-off scores for PTSD symptoms. Filipino respondents were more likely to report physical symptoms resembling COVID-19 infection, recent use of medical services with lower confidence, recent direct, and indirect contact with COVID, concerns about family members contracting COVID-19 and dissatisfaction with health information. In contrast, Chinese respondents requested more health information about COVID-19 and were more likely to stay at home for more than 20–24 h per day. For the Filipino, student status, low confidence in doctors, unsatisfaction of health information, long hours spent on health information, worries about family members contracting COVID-19, ostracization, unnecessary worries about COVID-19 were associated with adverse mental health.

The most important implication of the present study is to understand the challenges faced by a sample of people from an LMIC (The Philippines) compared to a sample of people from a UMIC (China) in Asia. As physical symptoms resembling COVID-19 infection (e.g., headache, myalgia, dizziness, and coryza) were associated with adverse mental health in both countries, this association could be due to lack of confidence in healthcare system and lack of testing for coronavirus. Previous research demonstrated that adverse mental health such as depression could affect the immune system and lead to physical symptoms such as malaise and other somatic symptoms ( 39 , 40 ). Based on our findings, the strategic approach to safeguard physical and mental health for middle-income countries would be cost-effective and widely available testing for people present with COVID-19 symptoms, providing a high quality of health information about COVID-19 by health authorities.

Students were afraid that confinement and learning online would hinder their progress in their studies ( 41 ). This may explain why students from the Philippines reported higher levels of IES-R and depression scores. Schools and colleges should evaluate the blended implementation of online and face-to-face learning to optimize educational outcomes when local spread is under control. As a significantly higher proportion of Filipino respondents lack confidence in their doctors, health authorities should ensure adequate training and develop hospital facilities to isolate COVID-19 cases and prevent COVID-19 spread among healthcare workers and patients ( 42 ). Besides, our study found that Filipino respondents were dissatisfied with health information. In contrast, Chinese respondents demanded more health information related to COVID-19. The difference could be due to stronger public health campaign launched by the Chinese government including national health education campaigns, a health QR (Quick Response) code system and community engagement that effectively curtailed the spread of COVID-19 ( 43 ). The high expectation for health information could be explained by high education attainment of participants as about 91.4 and 87.6% of participants from China and the Philippines have a university education.

Furthermore, the governments must employ communication experts to craft information, education, and messaging materials that are target-appropriate to each level of understanding in the community. That the Chinese Government rapidly deployed medical personnel and treated COVID-19 patients at rapidly-built hospitals ( 44 ) is in itself a confidence-building measure. Nevertheless, recent quarantine was associated with higher DASS-21 subscale scores in Chinese respondents only. It could be due to stricter control and monitoring of movements imposed by the Chinese government during the lockdown ( 45 ). Chinese respondents who stayed with more than three family members were associated with higher IES-R scores. The high IES-R scores could be due to worries of the spread of COVID-19 to family members and overcrowded home environment during the lockdown. The Philippines also converted sports arena into quarantine/isolation areas for COVID-19 patients with mild symptoms. These prompt actions helped restore public confidence in the healthcare system ( 46 ). A recent study reported that cultural factors, demand pressure for information, the ease of information dissemination via social networks, marketing incentives, and the poor legal regulation of online contents are the main reasons for misinformation dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic ( 47 ). Bastani and Bahrami ( 47 ) recommended the engagement of health professionals and authorities on social media during the pandemic and the improvement of public health literacy to counteract misinformation.

Chinese respondents were more likely to feel ostracized and Filipino respondents associated ostracization with adverse mental health. Recently, the editor-in-chief of The Lancet , Richard Horton, expressed concern of discrimination of a country or particular ethnic group, saying that while it is important to understand the origin and inter-species transmission of the coronavirus, it was both unhelpful and unscientific to point to a country as the origin of the Covid-19 pandemic, as such accusation could be highly stigmatizing and discriminatory ( 48 ). The global co-operation involves an exchange of expertise, adopting effective prevention strategies, sharing resources, and technologies among UMIC and LIMC to form a united front on tackling the COVID-19 pandemic remains a work in progress.

Strengths and Limitations

The main strength of this study lay in the fact that we performed in-depth analysis and studied the relationship between physical and mental outcomes and other variables related to COVID-19 in the Philippines and China. However, there are several limitations to be considered when interpreting the results. Although the Philippines is a LMIC and China is a UMIC, the findings cannot be generalized to other LIMCs and UMICs. Another limitation was the potential risk of sampling bias. This bias could be due to the online administration of questionnaires, and the majority of respondents from both countries were respondents with good educational attainment and internet access. We could not reach out to potential respondents without internet access (e.g., those who stayed in the countryside or remote areas). Further, our findings may not be generalizable to other middle-income countries.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, Filipinos (LMIC) respondents reported significantly higher levels of depression, anxiety and stress than Chinese (UMIC). Filipino respondents were more likely to report physical symptoms resembling COVID-19 infection, recent use of medical services with lower confidence, recent direct and indirect contact with COVID, concerns about family members contracting COVID-19 and dissatisfaction with health information than Chinese. For the current COVID-19 and future pandemic, Middle income countries need to adopt the strategic approach to safeguard physical and mental health by establishing cost-effective and widely available testing for people who present with COVID-19 symptoms; provision of high quality and accurate health information about COVID-19 by health authorities. Our findings urge middle income countries to prevent ostracization of a particular ethnic group, learn from each other, and unite to address the challenge of the COVID-19 pandemic and safeguard physical and mental health.

Data Availability Statement

The raw data supporting the conclusions of this article will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation.

Ethics Statement

Ethical review and approval was required for the study on human participants in accordance with the local legislation and institutional requirements. Written informed consent to participate in this study was provided by the participants' legal guardian/next of kin. The Institutional Review Board of the University of Philippines Manila Research Ethics Board (UPMREB 2020- 198-01) and Huaibei Normal University (China) approved the research proposal (HBU-IRB-2020-002).

Author Contributions

Concept and design: CW, MT, CT, RP, VK, and RH. Acquisition, analysis, and interpretation of data: CW, MT, CT, RP, LX, CHa, XW, YT, and VK. Drafting of the manuscript: CW, MT, CT, RH, and JA. Critical revision of the manuscript: MT, CT, CHo, and JA. Statistical analysis: CW, PR, RP, LX, XW, and YT. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Supplementary Material

The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.568929/full#supplementary-material

1. Sohrabi C, Alsafi Z, O'Neill N, Khan M, Kerwan A, Al-Jabir A, et al. World Health Organization declares global emergency: a review of the 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19). Int J Surg. (2020) 76:71–6. doi: 10.1016/j.ijsu.2020.02.034

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

2. Mahase E. Covid-19: WHO declares pandemic because of “alarming levels” of spread, severity, and inaction. BMJ. (2020) 368:m1036. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1036

3. Singhal T. A review of coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). Indian J. Pediatr. (2020) 87:281–6. doi: 10.1007/s12098-020-03263-6

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

4. Oxford. Oxford U of. Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) - Statistics and Research . (2020). Available online at: https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus%0D (accessed May 17, 2020).

Google Scholar

5. Edrada EM, Lopez EB, Villarama JB, Salva Villarama EP, Dagoc BF, Smith C, et al. First COVID-19 infections in the Philippines: a case report. Trop Med Health. (2020) 48:21. doi: 10.1186/s41182-020-00218-7

6. CNN. TIMELINE: How the Philippines is Handling COVID-19. (2020). Available online at: https://cnnphilippines.com/news/2020/4/21/interactive-timeline-PH-handling-COVID-19.html (accessed May 17, 2020).

7. Worldmeters. COVID-19 Coronavirus Pandemic. (2020). Available online at: https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/ (accessed December 4 2020).

8. WorldBank. World Bank National Accounts Data, and OECD National Accounts Data Files . (2020). Available online at: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GNP.PCAP.CD (accessed April 16 2020).

9. Schellekens P, Sourrouille D. The Unreal Dichotomy in COVID-19 Mortality between High-Income and Developing Countries. (2020). Available online at: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/future-development/2020/05/05/the-unreal-dichotomy-in-covid-19-mortality-between-high-income-and-developing-countries/ (accessed May 10 2020).

10. Medicalexpress. ‘Slow Response’: How Britain Became Worst-Hit in Europe by Virus. (2020). Available online at: https://medicalxpress.com/news/2020-05-response-britain-worst-hit-europe-virus.html (accessed May 8 2020).

11. Mamun MA, Ullah I. COVID-19 suicides in Pakistan, dying off not COVID-19 fear but poverty? - The forthcoming economic challenges for a developing country. Brain Behav Immun. (2020) 87:163–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.05.028

12. Kar SK, Oyetunji TP, Prakash AJ, Ogunmola OA, Tripathy S, Lawal MM, et al. Mental health research in the lower-middle-income countries of Africa and Asia during the COVID-19 pandemic: a scoping review. Neurol Psychiatry Brain Res. (2020) 38:54–64. doi: 10.1016/j.npbr.2020.10.003

13. Leung GM, Lam TH, Ho LM, Ho SY, Chan BH, Wong IO, et al. The impact of community psychological responses on outbreak control for severe acute respiratory syndrome in Hong Kong. J Epidemiol Community Health. (2003) 57:857–63. doi: 10.1136/jech.57.11.857

14. Cristóbal-Narváez P, Haro JM, Koyanagi A. Perceived stress and depression in 45 low- and middle-income countries. J Affect Disord. (2020) 274:799–805. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.04.020

15. Vallejo MA, Vallejo-Slocker L, Fernández-Abascal EG, Mañanes G. Determining factors for stress perception assessed with the perceived stress scale (PSS-4) in Spanish and other European samples. Front Psychol. (2018) 9:37. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00037

16. Shin C, Kim Y, Park S, Yoon S, Ko YH, Kim YK, et al. Prevalence and associated factors of depression in general population of Korea: results from the Korea National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 2014. J Korean Med Sci. (2017) 32:1861–9. doi: 10.3346/jkms.2017.32.11.1861

17. Olsen LR, Mortensen EL, Bech P. Prevalence of major depression and stress indicators in the Danish general population. Acta Psychiatr Scand. (2004) 109:96–103. doi: 10.1046/j.0001-690X.2003.00231.x

18. Lim GY, Tam WW, Lu Y, Ho CS, Zhang MW, Ho RC. Prevalence of depression in the community from 30 countries between 1994 and (2014). Sci Rep. (2018) 8:2861. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-21243-x

19. Sang T, Zhou H, Li M, Li W, Shi H, Chen H, et al. Investigation of the differences between the medical personnel's and general population's view on the doctor-patient relationship in China by a cross-sectional survey. Global Health. (2020) 16:99. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-41725/v2

20. Ferrer RR, Ramirez M, Beckman LJ, Danao LL, Ashing-Giwa KT. The impact of cultural characteristics on colorectal cancer screening adherence among Filipinos in the United States: a pilot study. Psychooncology. (2011) 20:862–70. doi: 10.1002/pon.1793

21. Lei P, Jolibert A. A three-model comparison of the relationship between quality, satisfaction and loyalty: an empirical study of the Chinese healthcare system. BMC Health Serv Res. (2012) 12:436. doi: 10.1186/1472-6963-12-436

22. Peabody JW, Florentino J, Shimkhada R, Solon O, Quimbo S. Quality variation and its impact on costs and satisfaction: evidence from the QIDS study. Med Care. (2010) 48:25–30. doi: 10.1097/MLR.0b013e3181bd47b2

23. Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LMW, Gill H, Phan L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. (2020) 277:55–64. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.001

24. Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, McIntyre RS, et al. A longitudinal study on the mental health of general population during the COVID-19 epidemic in China. Brain Behav Immun. (2020) 87:40–8. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.028

25. Zhang MW, Ho CS, Fang P, Lu Y, Ho RC. Usage of social media and smartphone application in assessment of physical and psychological well-being of individuals in times of a major air pollution crisis. JMIR Mhealth Uhealth. (2014) 2:e16. doi: 10.2196/mhealth.2827

26. Chew NWS, Lee GKH, Tan BYQ, Jing M, Goh Y, Ngiam NJH, et al. A multinational, multicentre study on the psychological outcomes and associated physical symptoms amongst healthcare workers during COVID-19 outbreak. Brain Behav Immun. (2020) 88:559–65. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.049

27. Zhang MWB, Ho CSH, Fang P, Lu Y, Ho RCM. Methodology of developing a smartphone application for crisis research and its clinical application. Technol Health Care. (2014) 22:547–59. doi: 10.3233/THC-140819

28. Creamer M, Bell R, Failla S. Psychometric properties of the Impact of Event Scale - Revised. Behav Res Ther. (2003) 41:1489–96. doi: 10.1016/j.brat.2003.07.010

29. Lee SM, Kang WS, Cho A-R, Kim T, Park JK. Psychological impact of the 2015 MERS outbreak on hospital workers and quarantined hemodialysis patients. Compr Psychiatry. (2018) 87:123–7. doi: 10.1016/j.comppsych.2018.10.003

30. Le TA, Le MQT, Dang AD, Dang AK, Nguyen CT, Pham HQ, et al. Multi-level predictors of psychological problems among methadone maintenance treatment patients in difference types of settings in Vietnam. Subst Abuse Treat Prev Policy. (2019) 14:39. doi: 10.1186/s13011-019-0223-4

31. Cheung JTK, Tsoi VWY, Wong KHK, Chung RY. Abuse and depression among Filipino foreign domestic helpers. A cross-sectional survey in Hong Kong. Public Health. (2019) 166:121–7. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2018.09.020

32. Tee ML, Tee CA, Anlacan JP, Aligam KJG, Reyes PWC, Kuruchittham V, et al. Psychological impact of COVID-19 pandemic in the Philippines. J Affect Disord. (2020) 277:379–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2020.08.043

33. Tee CA, Salido EO, Reyes PWC, Ho RC, Tee ML. Psychological State and Associated Factors During the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) pandemic among filipinos with rheumatoid arthritis or systemic lupus erythematosus. Open Access Rheumatol. (2020) 12:215–22. doi: 10.2147/OARRR.S269889

34. Ho CSH, Tan ELY, Ho RCM, Chiu MYL. Relationship of anxiety and depression with respiratory symptoms: comparison between depressed and non-depressed smokers in Singapore. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2019) 16:163. doi: 10.3390/ijerph16010163

35. Quek TC, Ho CS, Choo CC, Nguyen LH, Tran BX, Ho RC. Misophonia in Singaporean psychiatric patients: a cross-sectional study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2018) 15:1410. doi: 10.3390/ijerph15071410

36. Hao F, Tan W, Jiang L, Zhang L, Zhao X, Zou Y, et al. Do psychiatric patients experience more psychiatric symptoms during COVID-19 pandemic and lockdown? A case-control study with service and research implications for immunopsychiatry. Brain Behav Immun. (2020) 87:100–6. doi: 10.1016/j.bbi.2020.04.069

37. Wang C, Pan R, Wan X, Tan Y, Xu L, Ho CS, et al. Immediate psychological responses and associated factors during the initial stage of the 2019 Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19) epidemic among the general population in China. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:E1729. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17051729

38. Tan BYQ, Chew NWS, Lee GKH, Jing M, Goh Y, Yeo LLL, et al. Psychological impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health care workers in Singapore. Ann Intern Med . (2020) 173:317–20. doi: 10.7326/M20-1083

39. Liu Y, Ho RC, Mak A. Interleukin (IL)-6, tumour necrosis factor alpha (TNF-α) and soluble interleukin-2 receptors (sIL-2R) are elevated in patients with major depressive disorder: a meta-analysis and meta-regression. J Affect Disord. (2012) 139:230–9. doi: 10.1016/j.jad.2011.08.003

40. Viljoen M, Panzer A. Proinflammatory cytokines: a common denominator in depression and somatic symptoms? Can J Psychiatry. (2005) 50:128. doi: 10.1177/070674370505000216

41. Li HY, Cao H, Leung DYP, Mak YW. The psychological impacts of a COVID-19 outbreak on college students in China: a longitudinal study. Int J Environ Res Public Health. (2020) 17:3933. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17113933

42. Krishnakumar B, Rana S. COVID 19 in INDIA: strategies to combat from combination threat of life and livelihood. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. (2020) 53:389–91. doi: 10.1016/j.jmii.2020.03.024

43. Huang Y, Wu Q, Wang P, Xu Y, Wang L, Zhao Y, et al. Measures undertaken in China to avoid COVID-19 infection: internet-based, cross-sectional survey study. J Med Internet Res. (2020) 22:e18718. doi: 10.2196/18718

44. Salo J. China Orders 1,400 Military Doctors, Nurses to Treat Coronavirus. (2020). Available online at: https://nypost.com/2020/02/02/china-orders-14000-military-doctors-nurses-to-treat-coronavirus/ (accessed March 22, 2020).

45. Burki T. China's successful control of COVID-19. Lancet Infect Dis. (2020) 20:1240–1. doi: 10.1016/S1473-3099(20)30800-8

46. Esguerra DJ. Philippine Arena to Start Accepting COVID-19 Patients Next Week . (2020). Available online at: https://newsinfo.inquirer.net/1255623/philippine-arena-to-start-accepting-covid-19-patients-next-week (accessed November 18, 2020).

47. Bastani P, Bahrami MA. COVID-19 related misinformation on social media: a qualitative study from Iran. J Med Internet Res. (2020). doi: 10.2196/preprints.18932. [Epub ahead of print].

48. Catherine W. It's Unfair to Blame China for Coronavirus Pandemic, Lancet Editor Tells State Media. (2020). Available online at: https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3082606/its-unfair-blame-china-coronavirus-pandemic-lancet-editor-tells (accessed May 8, 2020).

Keywords: anxiety, China, COVID-19, depression, middle-income, knowledge, precaution, Philippines

Citation: Tee M, Wang C, Tee C, Pan R, Reyes PW, Wan X, Anlacan J, Tan Y, Xu L, Harijanto C, Kuruchittham V, Ho C and Ho R (2021) Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Physical and Mental Health in Lower and Upper Middle-Income Asian Countries: A Comparison Between the Philippines and China. Front. Psychiatry 11:568929. doi: 10.3389/fpsyt.2020.568929

Received: 02 June 2020; Accepted: 22 December 2020; Published: 09 February 2021.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2021 Tee, Wang, Tee, Pan, Reyes, Wan, Anlacan, Tan, Xu, Harijanto, Kuruchittham, Ho and Ho. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Cuiyan Wang, wcy@chnu.edu.cn

† These authors share first authorship

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

Ground-breaking study reveals how COVID-19 vaccines prevent severe disease

A landmark study by scientists at the University of Oxford, has unveiled crucial insights into the way that COVID-19 vaccines mitigate severe illness in those who have been vaccinated.

Despite the global success of COVID-19 vaccination campaigns, concerns remain around the continued spread of this disease including in vaccinated individuals. For this reason, researchers at the Oxford Vaccine Group conducted an extensive investigation into the human immune response to COVID-19, in both vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals.

Employing contemporary “big-data” analyses, scientists can find novel associations between fundamental biological entities and indicators of the severity of a disease — to build patterns of health and disease. Results of this study categorically show a reduction in indicators of disease severity in those who had received the vaccine, demonstrating that the harmful inflammatory reaction to COVID-19 is less severe in those who have been vaccinated, when compared with those who haven’t.

Professor Daniel O'Connor, Head of Bioinformatics at the Oxford Vaccine Group (OVG), led the study. He said: “These results confirm the efficacy of vaccination and its pivotal role in reducing the harmful consequences associated with COVID-19. The results of our research highlight the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine's ability to modulate harmful responses to the SARS-CoV-2 virus, and therefore to reduce the severity of illness. The implications of these findings are far-reaching, offering evidence that is fundamental to future vaccine development and pandemic mitigation strategies. It also provides valuable guidance for policymakers and public health experts.”

Professor Sir Andrew Pollard, Ashall Professor of Infection and Immunity and Director of the Oxford Vaccine Group, said: “Better understanding of how vaccines can reduce the severity of infections caused by viruses like COVID-19 is a key part of our preparedness to make effective vaccines against the next pandemic threat. Ongoing research is critical as we know the next one is coming but we don’t know which virus or when it will be.”

The study employed state-of-the-art technologies, including RNA-sequencing (to capture the level of genes produced by blood cells), to achieve these results. While the findings are promising, the study acknowledges limitations such as a focus on mild cases and sample size constraints, highlighting the need for further research utilising advanced techniques to enhance resolution.

Key findings from the study include:

• Identification of unique responses to COVID-19 among vaccinated individuals, highlighting the vaccine's influence on responses to this disease.
• Demonstrated reduction in harmful responses associated with COVID-19 severity in recipients of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine compared with unvaccinated counterparts.
• COVID-19 in vaccinated individuals resulted in less COVID-19-induced blood cell count changes.
• Correlation between decreased levels of a particular class of molecules in blood (microRNAs) and elevated levels of inflammation, suggesting a regulatory role for these molecules in inflammatory responses to viral infection.

Funding for the study was provided by various organisations, including the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR), Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. Notably, the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 randomised controlled trials received support from UK Research and Innovation, NIHR, Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, among others.

Notes for Editors

For media queries or to schedule interviews please contact Dr Adriaan Louis Taljaard, Manager Strategic Communications (Vaccines), Oxford University: [email protected] Link to the research paper: Multi-omics analysis reveals COVID-19 vaccine induced attenuation of inflammatory responses during breakthrough disease

About Oxford Vaccine Group (OVG) The Oxford Vaccine Group (OVG) designs and conducts studies of new and improved vaccines for children and adults around the world and is based in the Department of Paediatrics at the University of Oxford. Visit our website and follow us on X .

About the Department of Paediatrics The Department of Paediatrics is a world leader in child health research and hosts internationally renowned programmes in drug development, gastroenterology, haematology, HIV, immunology, neuroimaging, neuromuscular diseases and vaccinology. Its work spans from early proof-of-concept and fundamental science all the way up to its application in clinical settings. The Department aims to shape the landscape of medical science by positively impacting the lives of millions of children through its global research programmes, academic resources and commitment to success. With research facilities in the UK and abroad, the Department of Paediatrics works on an international scale, and has a strong, collaborative network with the medical science community across the globe.

About the University of Oxford Oxford University has been placed number 1 in the Times Higher Education World University Rankings for the eighth year running, and number 3 in the QS World Rankings 2024. At the heart of this success are the twin-pillars of our ground-breaking research and innovation and our distinctive educational offer. Oxford is world-famous for research and teaching excellence and home to some of the most talented people from across the globe. Our work helps the lives of millions, solving real-world problems through a huge network of partnerships and collaborations. The breadth and interdisciplinary nature of our research alongside our personalised approach to teaching sparks imaginative and inventive insights and solutions. Through its research commercialisation arm, Oxford University Innovation, Oxford is the highest university patent filer in the UK and is ranked first in the UK for university spinouts, having created more than 300 new companies since 1988. Over a third of these companies have been created in the past five years. The university is a catalyst for prosperity in Oxfordshire and the United Kingdom, contributing £15.7 billion to the UK economy in 2018/19, and supports more than 28,000 full time jobs.

DISCOVER MORE

• Support Oxford's research
• Partner with Oxford on research
• Study at Oxford
• Research jobs at Oxford

You can view all news or browse by category

• Current Students

New study differentiates perinatal risks of COVID-19 infection from pandemic era societal changes

California preterm births declined during pandemic

• 2 min. read ▪ Published May 9
• Share on LinkedIn
• Share on Facebook
• Share on X (Twitter)

A new study has disentangled the risks to infants and birth parents from infection with SARS-CoV-2—the virus that causes COVID-19— from risks related to broader societal changes during the pandemic period.

Led by Dr. Shelley Jung , a UC Berkeley School of Public Health researcher, and published today in JAMA Network Open , the article shows that COVID-19 infection was associated with increased risk of preterm birth, hypertension, and severe maternal morbidity—which the CDC defines as “unexpected outcomes of labor and delivery that result in significant short- or long-term consequences to a woman’s health.” Interestingly, the pandemic period itself was associated with a lower risk of preterm birth, but a higher risk of hypertension and gestational diabetes.

This is the first study to separate the infant and birth parent risks linked to the pre-pandemic period, the societal changes of the pandemic period, and individual COVID-19 infection. “As far as we know, ours is the first within one coherent set of data to pull these three groups apart,” said Dr. Jennifer Ahern , a UC Berkeley epidemiology professor and the paper’s senior author.

The societal changes that may have affected health included differential access to care, economic strain, physical inactivity, and other stressors.

“It was an extremely stressful time for people for a variety of reasons,” said Ahern. “There were the economic impacts, which were pretty substantial, people losing jobs and sources of income.”

Jung noted that while COVID-19 infections had negative effects, the pandemic did also bring some positive impact.

“You’ve got maybe less commute stress, less physical stress during pregnancy,” she said. “It’s just a very complex set of changes that all coincided. It was exciting to dig into the net effect of the period on the people of California.” This study examined statewide California data, individually linking all birth and hospital discharge records for 2019 to 2020. “We linked the birth records to the hospital records,” Jung said. “Then we looked nine months back at the birth parent’s pregnancy and looked at all the hospital visits during those nine months.”

Ahern praised the state of California for coordinating data sources and making them available through a rigorous process that she said allows for valuable research while also protecting patient privacy.

The team will move on to look not just at the overall effect of the COVID pandemic period on the population, but how COVID may affect health disparities.

Additional authors include: Emily F. Liu, Mahasin S. Mujahid, and William H. Dow of UC Berkeley School of Public Health and Dana E. Goin and Kara E. Rudolph of Mailman School of Public Health at Columbia University.

This project was funded by grants from the National Institutes of Health.

People of BPH found in this article include:

• Jennifer Ahern Professor, Epidemiology
• William Dow Professor, Health Policy and Management
• Mahasin Mujahid Chair, Epidemiology Division

More in category “Research Highlights”:

Surgery in a hospital doesn’t necessarily lead to better outcomes than surgery in a surgical center, collaboration is key to pioneering research with youth experiencing homelessness, exposure to wildfire smoke during pregnancy increases risk of preterm birth, rosemarie de la rosa tracks how childhood exposure to environmental pollutants and social stress has lifelong affect.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• 07 May 2024

US funders to tighten oversight of controversial ‘gain of function’ research

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

A US policy that goes into effect next year tightens oversight of risky pathogen research conducted in biosafety facilities. Credit: Associated Press/Alamy Stock Photo

After years of deliberation, US officials have released a policy that outlines how federal funding agencies and research institutions must review and oversee biological experiments on pathogens with the potential to be misused or spark a pandemic.

The policy, which applies to all research funded by US agencies and will take effect in May 2025, broadens oversight of these experiments. It singles out work involving high-risk pathogens for special oversight and streamlines existing policies and guidelines, adding clarity that researchers have been seeking for years.

“This is a very welcome development,” says Jaime Yassif, vice-president of global biological policy and programmes at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a research centre in Washington DC that focuses on national-security issues. “The US is the biggest funder of life sciences research [globally], so we have a moral obligation to guard against risks.”

Balancing act

Manipulating pathogens such as viruses inside an enclosed laboratory facility, sometimes by making them more transmissible or harmful (called gain-of-function research), can help scientists to assess their risk to society and develop countermeasures such as vaccines or antiviral drugs. But the worry is that such pathogens could accidentally escape the laboratory or even become weaponized by people with malicious intent.

Policymakers have had difficulty developing a clearly articulated review system that evaluates the risks and benefits of this research, while ensuring that fundamental science needed to prepare for the next pandemic and to advance medicine isn’t paralysed. The latest policy, released on 6 May by the US Office of Science and Technology Policy, is the next stage of a long-running US balancing act between totally banning high-risk pathogen research and assessing it with standards that some say are too ambiguous.

The shifting sands of ‘gain-of-function’ research

In 2014, after several accidents involving mishandled pathogens at US government laboratories, the presidential administration announced a moratorium on funding for research that could make certain pathogens — such as influenza and coronaviruses — more dangerous, given their potential to unleash an epidemic or pandemic. At the time, some researchers said the ban threatened necessary flu surveillance and vaccine research.

The government ended the moratorium in 2017, after the US National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB), a panel of experts that advises the US government, concluded that very few experiments posed a risk. That year, the US Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) instead implemented a review framework for proposals from scientists seeking federal funding for experiments involving potential pandemic pathogens. This framework applied to proposals to any agency housed under the HHS, including the National Institutes of Health (NIH) — the largest public funder of biomedical research in the world.

Researchers raised concerns about the transparency of this review process, and the NSABB was asked to revisit these policies and guidelines in 2020, but the COVID-19 pandemic delayed any action until 2022. During that time, the emergence of the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 , and the ensuing debate over whether it had leaked from a lab in China, put biosafety at the top of researchers’ minds worldwide. The NIH, in particular, was scrutinized during the pandemic for its role in funding potentially risky coronavirus research. In response, some Republican lawmakers have — so far unsuccessfully — put forward legislation that would once again place a moratorium on research that might increase the transmissibility or virulence of pathogens.

Finding a balance

The latest policy aims to address concerns that have arisen over the past decade about lax oversight, ambiguous wording and lack of transparency.

It breaks potentially problematic research into two categories. The first includes research on biological pathogens or toxins that could generate knowledge, technologies or products that could be misused. The second includes research on pathogens with enhanced pandemic potential.

Research falls into the first category if it meets several criteria. For example, it must involve high-risk biological agents, such as smallpox, that are on specific lists. It must also have particular experimental outcomes, such as increasing an agent’s deadliness.

Research that falls into the second category includes pathogens intended to be modified in a way that is “reasonably anticipated” to make them more dangerous. That criterion means that even research on pathogens that are not typically considered dangerous — seasonal influenza, for example — can fall into the second category. Previously, pathogen surveillance and vaccine-development research were not subject to additional oversight in the United States; the latest policy eliminates this exception, but clarifies that both surveillance and vaccine research are “typically not within the scope” of research in the second category.

Layers of review

Scientists and their institutions are responsible for identifying research that falls into the two categories, the policy states. Once the funding agency confirms that a research proposal fits into either group, that agency will request a risk–benefit assessment and a risk-mitigation plan from the investigator and institution. If a proposal is deemed to fit into the second category, it will undergo an extra review before the project gets the green light. A report of all federally funded research that fits into the second category will be made public every year.

NIH reinstates grant for controversial coronavirus research

The directive also mandates that agencies outside the HHS that fund biological research, such as the US Department of Defense, must abide by the same rules. This is a huge step forward, says Tom Inglesby, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Health Security in Baltimore, Maryland. But it applies only to federally funded research; the policy recommends, but does not require, that non-governmental organizations and the private sector follow the same rules.

Federal agencies and research institutions will now create their own implementation plans to comply with the policy before it goes into effect in 2025. Yassif says that the policy’s success will hinge on how these stakeholders implement it.

Nevertheless, the policy sets a worldwide standard and might inspire other countries to re-evaluate how they oversee life-sciences research, says Filippa Lentzos, a biosecurity researcher at King’s College London who chairs an advisory group for the World Health Organization (WHO) on the responsible use of life-sciences research. Later this month, at the World Health Assembly in Geneva, Switzerland, WHO member states will consider a proposal to urge nations to cooperate on developing international standards for biosecurity.

doi: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-01377-x

Reprints and permissions

Related Articles

• Research management
• Public health

Bird flu in US cows: where will it end?

News 08 MAY 24

Computationally restoring the potency of a clinical antibody against Omicron

Article 08 MAY 24

Chinese virologist who was first to share COVID-19 genome sleeps on street after lab shuts

News 01 MAY 24

Japan can embrace open science — but flexible approaches are key

Correspondence 07 MAY 24

Beware of graphene’s huge and hidden environmental costs

Countering extreme wildfires with prescribed burning can be counterproductive

France’s research mega-campus faces leadership crisis

News 03 MAY 24

My PI yelled at me and I’m devastated. What do I do?

Career Feature 02 MAY 24

Southeast University Future Technology Institute Recruitment Notice

Professor openings in mechanical engineering, control science and engineering, and integrating emerging interdisciplinary majors

Nanjing, Jiangsu (CN)

Southeast University

Staff Scientist

A Staff Scientist position is available in the laboratory of Drs. Elliot and Glassberg to study translational aspects of lung injury, repair and fibro

Maywood, Illinois

Loyola University Chicago - Department of Medicine

W3-Professorship (with tenure) in Inorganic Chemistry

The Institute of Inorganic Chemistry in the Faculty of Mathematics and Natural Sciences at the University of Bonn invites applications for a W3-Pro...

53113, Zentrum (DE)

Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität

Principal Investigator Positions at the Chinese Institutes for Medical Research, Beijing

Studies of mechanisms of human diseases, drug discovery, biomedical engineering, public health and relevant interdisciplinary fields.

Beijing, China

The Chinese Institutes for Medical Research (CIMR), Beijing

Research Associate - Neural Development Disorders

Houston, Texas (US)

Baylor College of Medicine (BCM)

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

This paper is in the following e-collection/theme issue:

Published on 10.5.2024 in Vol 10 (2024)

Ambulance Services Attendance for Mental Health and Overdose Before and During COVID-19 in Canada and the United Kingdom: Interrupted Time Series Study

Authors of this article:

Original Paper

• Graham Law 1 , PhD   ; 
• Rhiannon Cooper 2, 3 , MSc   ; 
• Melissa Pirrie 2 , PhD   ; 
• Richard Ferron 3, 4 , MHM   ; 
• Brent McLeod 5 , MPH   ; 
• Robert Spaight 6 , MSc   ; 
• A Niroshan Siriwardena 1 , PhD   ; 
• Gina Agarwal 2, 3 , PhD   ; 
• UK Canada Emergency Calls Data Analysis and GEospatial Mapping (EDGE) Consortium 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6

1 Community and Health Research Unit, School of Health and Social Care, University of Lincoln, Lincolnshire, United Kingdom

2 Department of Family Medicine, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

3 Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada

4 Niagara Emergency Medical Services, Niagara, ON, Canada

5 Hamilton Paramedic Service, Hamilton, ON, Canada

6 East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust, Nottingham, United Kingdom

Corresponding Author:

Gina Agarwal, PhD

Department of Family Medicine

McMaster University

100 Main Street West

Hamilton, ON,

Phone: 1 905 525 9140

Email: [email protected]

Background: The COVID-19 pandemic impacted mental health and health care systems worldwide.

Objective: This study examined the COVID-19 pandemic’s impact on ambulance attendances for mental health and overdose, comparing similar regions in the United Kingdom and Canada that implemented different public health measures.

Methods: An interrupted time series study of ambulance attendances was conducted for mental health and overdose in the United Kingdom (East Midlands region) and Canada (Hamilton and Niagara regions). Data were obtained from 182,497 ambulance attendance records for the study period of December 29, 2019, to August 1, 2020. Negative binomial regressions modeled the count of attendances per week per 100,000 population in the weeks leading up to the lockdown, the week the lockdown was initiated, and the weeks following the lockdown. Stratified analyses were conducted by sex and age.

Results: Ambulance attendances for mental health and overdose had very small week-over-week increases prior to lockdown (United Kingdom: incidence rate ratio [IRR] 1.002, 95% CI 1.002-1.003 for mental health). However, substantial changes were observed at the time of lockdown; while there was a statistically significant drop in the rate of overdose attendances in the study regions of both countries (United Kingdom: IRR 0.573, 95% CI 0.518-0.635 and Canada: IRR 0.743, 95% CI 0.602-0.917), the rate of mental health attendances increased in the UK region only (United Kingdom: IRR 1.125, 95% CI 1.031-1.227 and Canada: IRR 0.922, 95% CI 0.794-1.071). Different trends were observed based on sex and age categories within and between study regions.

Conclusions: The observed changes in ambulance attendances for mental health and overdose at the time of lockdown differed between the UK and Canada study regions. These results may inform future pandemic planning and further research on the public health measures that may explain observed regional differences.

Introduction

As the SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has spread across the globe, it presents a major threat to mental health in general and is related to alcohol and substance use [ 1 - 3 ]. Government responses, in the form of travel restrictions and economic support for the COVID-19 pandemic, vary greatly from country to country [ 4 ]. Sweeping border closures and strict public health measures were variably implemented by many governments in an effort to contain the virus. However, inconsistencies in government responses may have contributed to fear and uncertainty, while strict public health measures may lead to social isolation [ 5 ].

Anxiety, depression, poor sleep quality, and psychological distress are mental health symptoms that have increased since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 6 ]. Stress and poor mental health are being exacerbated by the uncertain future of the pandemic, misinformation, and social isolation brought about by physical distancing measures [ 7 , 8 ]. Factors such as sex and age have also been identified as risk factors for experiencing negative mental health effects of the COVID-19 pandemic [ 6 , 9 ]. Being younger and identifying as female have both been linked to experiencing lower psychological well-being throughout the course of the pandemic. Relatedly, there are also reports of an increase in overdoses during the COVID-19 pandemic [ 10 , 11 ]. This may be due to changes in the availability of illicit drugs during lockdown [ 2 ], possibly resulting in a higher rate of overdoses when access was restored, and also challenges in physically accessing pharmaceutical therapies (eg, methadone) [ 2 ]. In addition, a systematic review in 2022 reported that mental health and overdose are consistently found to be associated across studies, although the causal mechanism remains unclear [ 12 ]. In the context of COVID-19, it has been reported that social isolation has put at risk the vulnerable population of substance users, increasing the strain on mental health and subsequently further increasing the probability of an overdose [ 2 ]. Therefore, mental health and overdose are 2 related, but different, outcomes that should be examined in tandem.

Currently, studies examining the relationship between mental health and COVID-19 rely on self-reported measures [ 6 , 9 , 13 ]. Other indicators of population mental health and overdoses are of interest, especially for policy and resource planning. Emergency medical service (EMS) data, such as attendances, have previously been used to understand public health trends, which can help planning and resource allocation [ 14 ].

Due to variation in population characteristics and the government response to COVID-19 between countries, differences may exist in mental health effects. Specifically, the United Kingdom and Canada are 2 countries that experienced differing national responses to the ongoing pandemic. A report by the chief public health officer of Canada found that self-perceived mental health status decreased during the COVID-19 pandemic when compared to 2018 and that overdoses were increasing [ 11 ]. A comparison of the mental health and overdose effects of COVID-19 between Canada and the United Kingdom is of interest, as population characteristics and EMS attendance differ. Understanding the need for other indicators of mental health and overdose besides self-reporting, EMS data will be used to elucidate the impact of COVID-19 on EMS attendances.

Little is known about the trend in attendances before and after lockdown, especially for mental health and overdoses internationally. This paper aims to compare differences in the trends and volumes of mental health and overdose attendances before and after lockdown between specific regions in Canada and the United Kingdom. Evidence suggests that differences exist between mental health and overdose effects between sexes and age groups [ 6 , 9 ]. Therefore, this study will examine and describe the number of mental health and overdose attendances to 911 or 999 EMS calls in regions of the United Kingdom and Canada according to population subgroups.

Study Design

We used an interrupted time series design, analyzing weekly ambulance attendances before and after the COVID-19 lockdown from regions of the United Kingdom (East Midlands) and Canada (Niagara and Hamilton, Ontario). The East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust is a regional EMS that operates in the East Midlands of the United Kingdom. In Canada, 2 services were examined: Niagara Emergency Medical Services is a moderate-sized EMS that operates in the Niagara region of Ontario, Canada, and Hamilton Paramedic Service is a moderate-sized EMS in Hamilton, Ontario. We purposefully selected these regions in the United Kingdom and Canada for comparison since they have similar population densities and median household incomes, and it was feasible to obtain their EMS call records.

In Canada, the study population was those attended to by Niagara Emergency Medical Services and Hamilton Paramedic Service in Ontario. The population of Niagara and Hamilton was obtained from the 2021 Canadian Census Profile [ 15 ]. In the United Kingdom, the study population was the East Midlands region of England, which is serviced by East Midlands Ambulance Service NHS Trust. The population for the East Midlands region was obtained from the Office for National Statistics using the midyear population estimates [ 16 ] by age and sex.

Ethical Considerations

In the United Kingdom, the study was given NHS favorable ethical opinion (reference 20/SC/0307) by the South Central—Berkshire B Research Ethics Committee and is listed on the Integrated Research Application System as 286198. Patient records for this study were anonymized by the ambulance service, and informed consent could not be feasibly obtained for this retrospective study of administrative data. In Canada, the study was reviewed by the Hamilton Integrated Research Ethics Board, and a waiver letter was issued since individual patient data were not released by the paramedic services, and only weekly aggregated administrative data for the entire region were provided for this study.

Data Collection

The weekly number of ambulance attendances (Sunday to Saturday) was collected covering 2 adjacent time periods: the weeks leading up to the lockdown (December 29, 2019, until March 21, 2020, in the United Kingdom and March 14, 2020, in Canada) and the weeks during and following the lockdown (March 22, 2020 and March 15 in the United Kingdom and Canada, respectively, until August 1, 2020). The lockdown occurred on March 23, 2020, in the United Kingdom and March 15, 2020, in Canada.

Mental Health and Overdose

Ambulance call records for mental health and overdose were identified by the ambulance services through clinical impression (provisional diagnosis) codes recorded by ambulance staff when attending the patient. The UK and Canadian systems for assigning problem codes to paramedic-patient encounters are similar, though the actual codes available to select from are slightly different in each country. Work to map the 2 countries’ systems of paramedic coding is underway [ 17 ]. Where more than one problem code existed (Canada), data for all problem codes (primary, secondary, and final) were extracted. The mental health records were identified in Canada as clinical impression or problem code 45 (behavior or psychiatric) and in the United Kingdom as the clinical impressions “admission under mental health act,” “anxiety,” “attempted suicide,” “deliberate self-harm,” “depression,” “panic attack,” “psychosis,” and “other mental health.” For overdose, the records were identified in Canada as clinical impression or problem codes 81 (drug or alcohol overdose), 81.1 (opioid overdose), or 81.2 (alcohol intoxication) and in the United Kingdom as clinical impression “intentional drug overdose (mental health),” “accidental overdose or poisoning (medical),” “effects of alcohol,” and “query intoxicated (medical).”

Sex and Age Groups

Sex was recorded in Canada and the United Kingdom by the crew in attendance. Age was recorded from self-report or estimated by the crew in attendance where this was not possible. Age groups were used to categorize the data into 18 years and younger, 18-44 years, 45-65 years, and 65 years and older.

Statistical Analysis

Using an interrupted time series approach ( Figure 1 ), the number of weekly attendances was modeled as the outcome using negative binomial regression, and the results were reported as incidence rate ratios (IRRs). As shown in Figure 1 , for each regression, the prelockdown trend of weekly calls was modeled (per week), and then a counterfactual scenario was imagined, where the trend in the data would have continued without the interruption. The counterfactual scenario provided a comparison for the evaluation of the impact of the lockdown by examining the change in level at the time of the lockdown (lockdown) and the change in the slope during lockdown (lockdown trend) relative to this counterfactual scenario.

Negative binomial regression was identified as the most appropriate model since there was overdispersion observed in the outcome variables. The models were fitted using time (in weeks relative to the lockdown start week), lockdown (a binary categorical variable of before lockdown and during lockdown), lockdown trend (time in weeks following lockdown, which indicates the slope change following lockdown), and seasonality (an adjustment made via the categorical variable of month) with an offset of total population size. All statistical analysis was conducted using R (R Foundation for Statistical Computing).

Table 1 shows there were 4.9 million people living in the area served by the ambulance service in the East Midlands region of the United Kingdom and 1.0 million in the Canadian regions of Hamilton and Niagara. The proportion of female individuals in each location was similar (n=2,457,905, 50.5% vs n=522,488, 51.2%), as were the proportions of individuals aged 65 years and older (n=902,947, 18.6% vs n=207,184, 20.5%). Household incomes and population densities were found to be similar, as well ( Table 1 ). In the Canadian study regions, the ambulance services provided 1 vehicle per 14,776 persons, while in the UK study region, it was 1 per 9809 persons.

a Adjusted household income using the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development purchasing power parities [ 18 ] based on a standardized basket of goods and services for the United Kingdom (0.7) and Canada (1.3).

b The mean disposable income, according to the United Kingdom Office for National Statistics, 2016 census [ 19 ].

c The median after-tax income, according to Statistics Canada, 2016 census [ 20 ]; weighted median using the Hamilton and Niagara population totals from the same year.

During the study period, there were 182,947 attendances for mental health and overdose in the study regions ( Table 2 and Table S1 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ), with an average of 1042.9 calls per week for mental health and 776.4 calls per week for overdose in the UK regions, and 232.5 calls per week for mental health and 139.1 calls per week for overdose in the Canadian regions. The interrupted time series analysis showed that in the time prior to the lockdown, attendances in the UK region for mental health had a small but statistically significant increasing rate across weeks, whereas the rate of these attendances was steady week-over-week in the Canadian regions. When the lockdown was initiated (the interruption in the time series) the rate of attendances for mental health in the UK region had a statistically significant increase and then remained stable with no statistically significant slope for the weeks during lockdown, while the Canadian regions saw no change when the lockdown was initiated (interruption) or in the slope during lockdown.

a Models have been adjusted for seasonality (each month as a variable).

b IRR: incidence rate ratio.

c IRRs statistically significant at P <.05 are indicated in italics format.

Overdose attendances had a similar small but statistically significant weekly increase in both the UK and Canadian regions, and both had statistically significant drops in the rate of overdose attendances when the lockdown was initiated. However, while the UK study region rebounded to having a statistically significant positive slope in attendance rate after lockdown, the Canadian regions maintained this lower level of attendances after lockdown with a statistically nonsignificant slope.

Table 3 shows model estimates for the rate of mental health attendance by sex and age categories across the study weeks (also see Table S2 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). For the Canadian regions, although the full sample showed no statistically significant changes in mental health attendances, this subgroup analysis demonstrates that there were substantial changes for male individuals. Specifically, at the time of lockdown (interruption), there was a statistically significant decrease in the rate of mental health attendances for male individuals, which then rebounded with a positive slope during the lockdown period. In contrast, both male and female individuals in the UK region had an increase in the rate of mental health attendances when the lockdown was initiated and then held steady at that new level.

While the Canadian regions showed no statistically significant changes in the rate of mental health attendances by age category, the UK region found that those younger than 18 years of age had a statistically significant decrease in mental health attendances when the lockdown was initiated, while those aged 45-65 years and 65 years and older had a statistically significant increase. In addition, for those aged 65 years and older, the rate of attendances for mental health continued to increase during the lockdown period.

Table 4 shows the attendances for overdose in each of the sex and age subgroups (also see Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 ). Similar to what was observed for mental health attendances, in the Canadian Region, there was a statistically significant drop in attendances for overdose at the time the lockdown was initiated; however, for this outcome, there was also a statistically significant drop for those aged 18-44 years. In the United Kingdom, a consistent statistically significant decrease in attendances for overdose was observed among all age and sex subgroups, followed by a statistically significant positive slope week-over-week for all subgroups in the period during lockdown.

Principal Findings

Our study found that there were statistically significant differences in the effects of lockdown on mental health and overdose attendances when comparing the United Kingdom and Canada. A web-based cross-sectional survey in the United Kingdom, 4 weeks into lockdown, found that 5% of participants were positive for a common mental health disorder [ 21 ]. In Canada, a cross-sectional survey found women of working age were most affected by a mental health condition, while 54% of Canadians reported good mental health [ 11 ]. While these surveys are helpful for understanding the self-reported mental health of populations, using EMS data as an indicator of mental health status among populations provides a powerful approach to understanding complex social changes in a novel way.

Both Canada and the United Kingdom experienced major societal changes during 2020 caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and took different approaches to addressing this event, which may explain observed differences in rates of mental health and overdose attendances for specific sex and age categories. The United Kingdom entered the first lockdown on March 23, 2020, while Ontario (Canada) had already reached this stage on March 15, 2020. Schools, colleges, and universities closed, and a large majority of the working population worked from home or was funded to not work (known as furlough in the United Kingdom). Hospitality services closed, and citizens were requested to remain at home. Primary care moved to web-based and telephone-based consultations, and general practitioners met patients in person only when necessary for examination. International borders were closed in Canada but remained largely open in the United Kingdom.

Financial benefits and emergency funding also differed between countries. The Canada Emergency Response Benefit paid a gross of CAD $2000 (equivalent to just under £1200 sterling or US $1480) per month for those who had lost their jobs or were unable to work. The United Kingdom relied on the standard benefit system, known as Universal Credit, for those who lost their jobs. Those still employed, but unable to work, were given 80% of their gross pay, up to a maximum of £2500 per month (equivalent to just over CAD $4200 or US $3100). Fiscal stimulus packages varied, with Canada investing 18.6% of gross domestic product and the United Kingdom 17.8% [ 22 ]. Finances are known to be a major cause of stress and mental health issues.

A measure of comparison between countries that actually allows us to compare the different approaches holistically is that of the stringency index. It is a measure of governmental and public health orders that took effect during the pandemic [ 4 ], allowing global comparisons due to a scoring system attributing values to components of lockdown (such as stay-at-home orders, business, and facility openings). A comparison of the United Kingdom’s and Canada’s stringency indices (shown in Multimedia Appendix 2 ) showed that, in fact, the United Kingdom and Canada experienced similar levels of lockdown, despite different governmental policies and other local public health unit mandates. The EMS data allow for health-related differences between countries that may be influenced by societal changes that have become evident, while contrasting comparisons of overall indices of lockdown stringency can concurrently be examined.

This study found that prior to the pandemic lockdown, overall the rate of mental health presentations was holding constant in Canada, and there was a very small increase over time in the United Kingdom. When the lockdown was initiated, a difference in EMS attendance was seen between the countries; in the United Kingdom, nonoverdose attendance for mental health increased substantially, while in Canada, there was no change. These observed differences between Canada and the United Kingdom may, in fact, be due to the differences in the governmental lockdowns and orders. In particular, health care workers have experienced a high prevalence of anxiety, depression, and insomnia. This may be due to several factors, including fear of infection and the overwhelming influx of new information pertaining to caring for patients with COVID-19 [ 23 - 25 ].

Both countries also showed similar rises in rates of attendances for overdoses prior to lockdown. The immediate effect of the lockdown was similar, with a large reduction in attendances for overdose in both the United Kingdom and Canada, although the rate was increasing again during the lockdown period in the United Kingdom. The level of overdoses may be impacted by not only mental health stressors but also other societal changes resulting from the pandemic. Where the availability of drugs and alcohol becomes reduced and supplies dwindle due to a lack of prescribing or a lack of street drugs, overdose may become more likely in the subsequent period, as tolerance to these substances may have decreased.

Differences by Sex

In the UK study region, there were no sex differences for mental health and overdose attendances; both sexes had similar increases for mental health but decreases for overdose. However, in the Canadian study regions, there was a statistically significant decrease in both mental health and overdose attendances for male individuals, while there was no statistically significant change for female individuals. The reasons for these different trends among the sex strata within and between the UK and Canadian study regions are likely to be extremely complex and multifactorial, and therefore difficult to tease out in this paper without further study.

Differences by Age

There has been debate about the impact of lockdown on children and young adults [ 26 ]. Schools closed in both the United Kingdom and Canada, and school-age children were taught by parents or guardians. In the UK study region, the week-over-week rate of mental health attendances was increasing in a similar manner for all age categories in the period before lockdown, but at the time of lockdown, there was a substantial drop in the rate of attendances among the individuals younger than 18-years of age, whereas there was an increase among the individuals aged 45-65 years and those older than 65 years. In contrast, in the Canadian study regions, there were no statistically significant changes in the rate of mental health attendances at the time the lockdown was initiated for any of the age category strata. For rates of overdose attendances, there was no noticeable effect demonstrated by different age group strata in Canada or the United Kingdom.

In the United Kingdom, examinations were canceled for the General Certificate of Secondary Education (16-year-olds) and A-levels (18-year-olds), which may have reduced stress. In addition, there may have been decreased stress due to learning at home, without the need to attend school in person, with less exposure to school-related stressors. This is supported by existing literature describing how adolescents with existing mental health problems pre-COVID-19 had less during the pandemic [ 27 ]. In Canada, the education system has no equivalent to the General Certificate of Secondary Education and A-level examinations; therefore, pandemic schooling-related effects would have been different and may not have been as pronounced, resulting in no statistically significant mental health changes pre-COVID-19 compared to during the pandemic.

In both the United Kingdom and Canada, there was considerable distress caused by the volume of vulnerable people in care homes and the speed of government responses. This was seen by the number of deaths among care-home residents [ 28 ] over the period from March 20, 2020, to January 15, 2021. In the United Kingdom, 33% (n=30,851) of COVID-19–related deaths were among people residing in care homes. In Canada, long-term care home residents accounted for 59% (n=11,114) of COVID-19–related fatalities. As a result of these problems, care home residents were subject to significant restrictions, leading to reduced access to medical care and isolation-related stress. Although it could be expected that the older age groups (45-55 years and 65 years and older) would worry about income, poor COVID-19 outcomes due to higher rates of chronic diseases [ 29 ], and about family and parents in care homes (United Kingdom) or long-term care facilities (Canada), these age groups had a statistically significant increase in mental health–related calls in the United Kingdom but not in Canada. Other literature from the United Kingdom demonstrates worse mental health in age groups younger than 35 years; however, the data were from a cross-sectional survey during lockdown [ 21 ]. These differences might be explained by behavioral differences in the reasons for which it was deemed appropriate to call EMS in each country, by less stress overall in one country versus the other, or by differences in the data collection method used to determine mental health problems (calls to EMS vs self-reported survey). However, further research is needed to understand these differences, which are beyond the scope of this paper.

Strengths and Limitations

This study compares routinely collected observational data from 2 Western countries. Data were collected primarily for routine clinical recording, monitoring, and clinical auditing rather than for epidemiological research. These data have nevertheless allowed a careful examination of the ambulance response to mental health and overdose emergencies experienced by the populations, using data that are not self-reported. It should be noted that responses to mental health in both the United Kingdom and Canada tend to have similar patient pathways. Both countries have a national health system, in which health care is freely available to all; therefore, the pathways open to patients are to call 911/999 to visit a primary care doctor or facility where they can receive emergency or urgent care.

There will be confounders that may explain some of the predictions made by the statistical models. Age and sex were adjusted for, but data were not available to adjust for ethnicity or socioeconomic status. In the United Kingdom and Canada, there have been clear differences in the rates of COVID-19 between different ethnic groups and levels of affluence. These differences are also likely to contribute to differences in rates of mental illness and requirements for mental health support.

There were differences in the data collected between each country, and efforts were made to adjust for these underlying coding differences. Intentionality was not used to define overdose. Clinical impression (ambulance provisional diagnosis) codes were not entirely comparable between the 2 countries. In Canada, impression code 81 (drug or alcohol overdose) is captured by the 4 most relevant codes in the United Kingdom. There will be cases missed and documented as “other medical problem” or “acute behavioral disturbance,” for example, but that broadens the category too wide. The agreement was achieved by extracting comparable codes through discussion.

Conclusions

The EMS attendance data have demonstrated varying impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on mental health and overdose between the study regions in the United Kingdom and Canada. While the countries implemented similar degrees of lockdowns and public health measures, as seen with the stringency index, there were differences in the specific measures taken; these differences may explain the divergence in mental health attendances between the regions. In contrast, overdose attendances followed similar patterns between the study regions. Future research is needed to explore the mechanisms behind these observed trends in EMS attendances following the lockdown and to examine whether the countries return to having similar rates of attendances over time as they did prior to the lockdown.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the emergency services in the study regions for accessing their data. The UK Canada Emergency Calls Data Analysis and GEospatial Mapping (EDGE) Consortium members are GA, ANS, Ricardo Angeles, Iwona Bielska, Jasdeep Brar, RC, RF, Mark Gussy, Bartholomew Hill, Kamlesh Khunti, GL, BM, Harriet Moore, MP, RS, and Frank Tanser.

Data Availability

The data sets analyzed during this study are not publicly available due to restrictions by the paramedic and ambulance services but are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Authors' Contributions

GL and GA are the guarantors of this work and, as such, have full access to all the data in the study and take responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis. RS, RF, BM, and ANS enabled the download of the data. RC, MP, and GL analyzed the data. GA, RF, and ANS oversaw data analysis and interpretation. GL, RC, MP, and GA wrote the first draft of the manuscript, which all authors critically reviewed thereafter.

Conflicts of Interest

None declared.

Results tables.

Stringency index for the 2 study regions from January to July 2020.

• Pfefferbaum B, North CS. Mental health and the COVID-19 pandemic. N Engl J Med. Aug 06, 2020;383(6):510-512. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ]
• Wakeman SE, Green TC, Rich J. An overdose surge will compound the COVID-19 pandemic if urgent action is not taken. Nat Med. Jun 2020;26(6):819-820. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Torales J, O'Higgins M, Castaldelli-Maia JM, Ventriglio A. The outbreak of COVID-19 coronavirus and its impact on global mental health. Int J Soc Psychiatry. Jun 2020;66(4):317-320. [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hale T, Angrist N, Goldszmidt R, Kira B, Petherick A, Phillips T, et al. A global panel database of pandemic policies (Oxford COVID-19 Government Response Tracker). Nat Hum Behav. Apr 2021;5(4):529-538. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Vigo D, Patten S, Pajer K, Krausz M, Taylor S, Rush B, et al. Mental health of communities during the COVID-19 pandemic. Can J Psychiatry. Oct 2020;65(10):681-687. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Vindegaard N, Benros ME. COVID-19 pandemic and mental health consequences: systematic review of the current evidence. Brain Behav Immun. Oct 2020;89:531-542. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Bao Y, Williams AR, Schackman BR. COVID-19 could change the way we respond to the opioid crisis—for the better. Psychiatr Serv. Dec 01, 2020;71(12):1214-1215. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rajkumar RP. COVID-19 and mental health: a review of the existing literature. Asian J Psychiatr. Aug 2020;52:102066. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Xiong J, Lipsitz O, Nasri F, Lui LMW, Gill H, Phan L, et al. Impact of COVID-19 pandemic on mental health in the general population: a systematic review. J Affect Disord. Dec 01, 2020;277:55-64. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Slavova S, Rock P, Bush HM, Quesinberry D, Walsh SL. Signal of increased opioid overdose during COVID-19 from emergency medical services data. Drug Alcohol Depend. Sep 01, 2020;214:108176. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• From risk to resilience: an equity approach to COVID-19—the Chief Public Health Officer of Canada’s report on the state of public health in Canada 2020. Public Health Agency of Canada. 2020. URL: https:/​/www.​canada.ca/​en/​public-health/​corporate/​publications/​chief-public-health-officer-reports-state-public-health-canada/​from-risk-resilience-equity-approach-covid-19.​html [accessed 2024-04-10]
• van Draanen J, Tsang C, Mitra S, Phuong V, Murakami A, Karamouzian M, et al. Mental disorder and opioid overdose: a systematic review. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. Apr 2022;57(4):647-671. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Rajkumar RP. Sleep, physical activity and mental health during the COVID-19 pandemic: complexities and opportunities for intervention. Sleep Med. Jan 2021;77:307-308. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Ferron R, Agarwal G, Cooper R, Munkley D. The effect of COVID-19 on emergency medical service call volumes and patient acuity: a cross-sectional study in Niagara, Ontario. BMC Emerg Med. Mar 29, 2021;21(1):39. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Census profile, 2021 census of population. Statistics Canada. 2022. URL: https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/en/catalogue/98-316-X2021001 [accessed 2024-04-10]
• Census output area population estimates—East Midlands, England (supporting information). Office for National Statistics. 2020. URL: https:/​/www.​ons.gov.uk/​peoplepopulationandcommunity/​populationandmigration/​populationestimates/​datasets/​censusoutputareaestimatesintheeastmidlandsregionofengland [accessed 2024-04-10]
• Agarwal G, Siriwardena AN, McLeod B, Spaight R, Whitley G, Ferron R, et al. EDGE Consortium. Development of indicators for avoidable emergency medical service calls by mapping paramedic clinical impression codes to ambulatory care sensitive conditions and mental health conditions in the UK and Canada. BMJ Open. Dec 12, 2023;13(12):e073520. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Purchasing power parities (PPP). Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​oecd-ilibrary.org/​finance-and-investment/​purchasing-power-parities-ppp/​indicator/​english_1290ee5a-en [accessed 2024-04-10]
• Average (mean) equivalised household disposable income of individuals per quintile by government region 2001 to 2021. Office for National Statistics. 2022. URL: https:/​/www.​ons.gov.uk/​peoplepopulationandcommunity/​personalandhouseholdfinances/​incomeandwealth/​adhocs/​14551averageequivalisedhouseholddisposableincomeofindividualsperquintilebygovernmentregion2000to2020 [accessed 2024-04-10]
• Income highlight tables, 2016 census. Statistics Canada. 2017. URL: https:/​/www12.​statcan.gc.ca/​census-recensement/​2016/​dp-pd/​hlt-fst/​inc-rev/​Table.​cfm?Lang=Eng&T=104&S=87&O=A&RPP=999#2016A00033526 [accessed 2024-04-10]
• Pieh C, Budimir S, Delgadillo J, Barkham M, Fontaine JRJ, Probst T. Mental health during COVID-19 lockdown in the United Kingdom. Psychosom Med. May 01, 2021;83(4):328-337. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Szmigiera M. COVID-19 stimulus package by country. Packag. G20 as share GDP 2021. Statista. 2021. URL: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1107572/covid-19-value-g20-stimulus-packages-share-gdp/ [accessed 2024-04-10]
• Pappa S, Ntella V, Giannakas T, Giannakoulis VG, Papoutsi E, Katsaounou P. Prevalence of depression, anxiety, and insomnia among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Brain Behav Immun. Aug 2020;88:901-907. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Esteban-Gonzalo S, González-Pascual JL, Caballero-Galilea M, Esteban-Gonzalo L. Psychosocial correlates of mental health and well-being during the COVID-19: the Spanish case. Front Psychol. 2020;11:609815. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Shanafelt T, Ripp J, Trockel M. Understanding and addressing sources of anxiety among health care professionals during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA. Jun 02, 2020;323(21):2133-2134. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Townsend E. Debate: The impact of school closures and lockdown on mental health in young people. Child Adolesc Ment Health. Nov 2020;25(4):265-266. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Hu Y, Qian Y. COVID-19 and adolescent mental health in the United Kingdom. J Adolesc Health. Jul 2021;69(1):26-32. [ FREE Full text ] [ CrossRef ] [ Medline ]
• Comas-Herrera A, Zalakaín J, Lemmon E, Henderson D, Litwin C, Hsu AT, et al. Mortality associated with COVID-19 in care homes: international evidence. International Long-Term Care Policy Network. 2020. URL: https:/​/ltccovid.​org/​2020/​04/​12/​mortality-associated-with-covid-19-outbreaks-in-care-homes-early-international-evidence/​ [accessed 2024-04-10]
• COVID-19: a public health emergency for older adults and their caregivers. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Apr 01, 2021. URL: https://www.cdc.gov/aging/publications/features/covid-19-help-older-adults-caregivers/index.html [accessed 2024-04-10]

Abbreviations

Edited by A Mavragani, T Sanchez; submitted 08.02.23; peer-reviewed by H Jaldell, K Yamada; comments to author 12.04.23; revised version received 24.08.23; accepted 05.03.24; published 10.05.24.

©Graham Law, Rhiannon Cooper, Melissa Pirrie, Richard Ferron, Brent McLeod, Robert Spaight, A Niroshan Siriwardena, Gina Agarwal, Gina UK Canada Emergency Calls Data Analysis and GEospatial Mapping (EDGE) Consortium. Originally published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance (https://publichealth.jmir.org), 10.05.2024.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work, first published in JMIR Public Health and Surveillance, is properly cited. The complete bibliographic information, a link to the original publication on https://publichealth.jmir.org, as well as this copyright and license information must be included.

Thousands Believe Covid Vaccines Harmed Them. Is Anyone Listening?

All vaccines have at least occasional side effects. But people who say they were injured by Covid vaccines believe their cases have been ignored.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City, said that ever since his first Covid shot, standing up has sent his heart racing. Credit... Hannah Yoon for The New York Times

Supported by

• Share full article

By Apoorva Mandavilli

Apoorva Mandavilli spent more than a year talking to dozens of experts in vaccine science, policymakers and people who said they had experienced serious side effects after receiving a Covid-19 vaccine.

• Published May 3, 2024 Updated May 4, 2024

Within minutes of getting the Johnson & Johnson Covid-19 vaccine, Michelle Zimmerman felt pain racing from her left arm up to her ear and down to her fingertips. Within days, she was unbearably sensitive to light and struggled to remember simple facts.

She was 37, with a Ph.D. in neuroscience, and until then could ride her bicycle 20 miles, teach a dance class and give a lecture on artificial intelligence, all in the same day. Now, more than three years later, she lives with her parents. Eventually diagnosed with brain damage, she cannot work, drive or even stand for long periods of time.

“When I let myself think about the devastation of what this has done to my life, and how much I’ve lost, sometimes it feels even too hard to comprehend,” said Dr. Zimmerman, who believes her injury is due to a contaminated vaccine batch .

The Covid vaccines, a triumph of science and public health, are estimated to have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths . Yet even the best vaccines produce rare but serious side effects . And the Covid vaccines have been given to more than 270 million people in the United States, in nearly 677 million doses .

Dr. Zimmerman’s account is among the more harrowing, but thousands of Americans believe they suffered serious side effects following Covid vaccination. As of April, just over 13,000 vaccine-injury compensation claims have been filed with the federal government — but to little avail. Only 19 percent have been reviewed. Only 47 of those were deemed eligible for compensation, and only 12 have been paid out, at an average of about $3,600 .

Some scientists fear that patients with real injuries are being denied help and believe that more needs to be done to clarify the possible risks.

“At least long Covid has been somewhat recognized,” said Akiko Iwasaki, an immunologist and vaccine expert at Yale University. But people who say they have post-vaccination injuries are “just completely ignored and dismissed and gaslighted,” she added.

In interviews and email exchanges conducted over several months, federal health officials insisted that serious side effects were extremely rare and that their surveillance efforts were more than sufficient to detect patterns of adverse events.

“Hundreds of millions of people in the United States have safely received Covid vaccines under the most intense safety monitoring in U.S. history,” Jeff Nesbit, a spokesman for the Department of Health and Human Services, said in an emailed statement.

But in a recent interview, Dr. Janet Woodcock, a longtime leader of the Food and Drug Administration, who retired in February, said she believed that some recipients had experienced uncommon but “serious” and “life-changing” reactions beyond those described by federal agencies.

“I feel bad for those people,” said Dr. Woodcock, who became the F.D.A.’s acting commissioner in January 2021 as the vaccines were rolling out. “I believe their suffering should be acknowledged, that they have real problems, and they should be taken seriously.”

“I’m disappointed in myself,” she added. “I did a lot of things I feel very good about, but this is one of the few things I feel I just didn’t bring it home.”

Federal officials and independent scientists face a number of challenges in identifying potential vaccine side effects.

The nation’s fragmented health care system complicates detection of very rare side effects, a process that depends on an analysis of huge amounts of data. That’s a difficult task when a patient may be tested for Covid at Walgreens, get vaccinated at CVS, go to a local clinic for minor ailments and seek care at a hospital for serious conditions. Each place may rely on different health record systems.

There is no central repository of vaccine recipients, nor of medical records, and no easy to way to pool these data. Reports to the largest federal database of so-called adverse events can be made by anyone, about anything. It’s not even clear what officials should be looking for.

“I mean, you’re not going to find ‘brain fog’ in the medical record or claims data, and so then you’re not going to find” a signal that it may be linked to vaccination, Dr. Woodcock said. If such a side effect is not acknowledged by federal officials, “it’s because it doesn’t have a good research definition,” she added. “It isn’t, like, malevolence on their part.”

The government’s understaffed compensation fund has paid so little because it officially recognizes few side effects for Covid vaccines. And vaccine supporters, including federal officials, worry that even a whisper of possible side effects feeds into misinformation spread by a vitriolic anti-vaccine movement.

‘I’m Not Real’

Patients who believe they experienced serious side effects say they have received little support or acknowledgment.

Shaun Barcavage, 54, a nurse practitioner in New York City who has worked on clinical trials for H.I.V. and Covid, said that ever since his first Covid shot, merely standing up sent his heart racing — a symptom suggestive of postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome , a neurological disorder that some studies have linked to both Covid and, much less often, vaccination .

He also experienced stinging pain in his eyes, mouth and genitals, which has abated, and tinnitus, which has not.

“I can’t get the government to help me,” Mr. Barcavage said of his fruitless pleas to federal agencies and elected representatives. “I am told I’m not real. I’m told I’m rare. I’m told I’m coincidence.”

Renee France, 49, a physical therapist in Seattle, developed Bell’s palsy — a form of facial paralysis, usually temporary — and a dramatic rash that neatly bisected her face. Bell’s palsy is a known side effect of other vaccines, and it has been linked to Covid vaccination in some studies.

But Dr. France said doctors were dismissive of any connection to the Covid vaccines. The rash, a bout of shingles, debilitated her for three weeks, so Dr. France reported it to federal databases twice.

“I thought for sure someone would reach out, but no one ever did,” she said.

Similar sentiments were echoed in interviews, conducted over more than a year, with 30 people who said they had been harmed by Covid shots. They described a variety of symptoms following vaccination, some neurological, some autoimmune, some cardiovascular.

All said they had been turned away by physicians, told their symptoms were psychosomatic, or labeled anti-vaccine by family and friends — despite the fact that they supported vaccines.

Even leading experts in vaccine science have run up against disbelief and ambivalence.

Dr. Gregory Poland, 68, editor in chief of the journal Vaccine, said that a loud whooshing sound in his ears had accompanied every moment since his first shot, but that his entreaties to colleagues at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to explore the phenomenon, tinnitus, had led nowhere.

He received polite responses to his many emails, but “I just don’t get any sense of movement,” he said.

“If they have done studies, those studies should be published,” Dr. Poland added. In despair that he might “never hear silence again,” he has sought solace in meditation and his religious faith.

Dr. Buddy Creech, 50, who led several Covid vaccine trials at Vanderbilt University, said his tinnitus and racing heart lasted about a week after each shot. “It’s very similar to what I experienced during acute Covid, back in March of 2020,” Dr. Creech said.

Research may ultimately find that most reported side effects are unrelated to the vaccine, he acknowledged. Many can be caused by Covid itself.

“Regardless, when our patients experience a side effect that may or may not be related to the vaccine, we owe it to them to investigate that as completely as we can,” Dr. Creech said.

Federal health officials say they do not believe that the Covid vaccines caused the illnesses described by patients like Mr. Barcavage, Dr. Zimmerman and Dr. France. The vaccines may cause transient reactions, such as swelling, fatigue and fever, according to the C.D.C., but the agency has documented only four serious but rare side effects .

Two are associated with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, which is no longer available in the United States: Guillain-Barré syndrome , a known side effect of other vaccines , including the flu shot; and a blood-clotting disorder.

The C.D.C. also links mRNA vaccines made by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna to heart inflammation, or myocarditis, especially in boys and young men. And the agency warns of anaphylaxis, or severe allergic reaction, which can occur after any vaccination.

Listening for Signals

Agency scientists are monitoring large databases containing medical information on millions of Americans for patterns that might suggest a hitherto unknown side effect of vaccination, said Dr. Demetre Daskalakis, director of the C.D.C.’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases.

“We toe the line by reporting the signals that we think are real signals and reporting them as soon as we identify them as signals,” he said. The agency’s systems for monitoring vaccine safety are “pretty close” to ideal, he said.

Those national surveillance efforts include the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS). It is the largest database, but also the least reliable: Reports of side effects can be submitted by anyone and are not vetted, so they may be subject to bias or manipulation.

The system contains roughly one million reports regarding Covid vaccination, the vast majority for mild events, according to the C.D.C.

Federal researchers also comb through databases that combine electronic health records and insurance claims on tens of millions of Americans. The scientists monitor the data for 23 conditions that may occur following Covid vaccination. Officials remain alert to others that may pop up, Dr. Daskalakis said.

But there are gaps, some experts noted. The Covid shots administered at mass vaccination sites were not recorded in insurance claims databases, for example, and medical records in the United States are not centralized.

“It’s harder to see signals when you have so many people, and things are happening in different parts of the country, and they’re not all collected in the same system,” said Rebecca Chandler, a vaccine safety expert at the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations.

An expert panel convened by the National Academies concluded in April that for the vast majority of side effects, there was not enough data to accept or reject a link.

Asked at a recent congressional hearing whether the nation’s vaccine-safety surveillance was sufficient, Dr. Peter Marks, director of the F.D.A.’s Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, said, “I do believe we could do better.”

In some countries with centralized health care systems, officials have actively sought out reports of serious side effects of Covid vaccines and reached conclusions that U.S. health authorities have not.

In Hong Kong, the government analyzed centralized medical records of patients after vaccination and paid people to come forward with problems. The strategy identified “a lot of mild cases that other countries would not otherwise pick up,” said Ian Wong, a researcher at the University of Hong Kong who led the nation’s vaccine safety efforts.

That included the finding that in rare instances — about seven per million doses — the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine triggered a bout of shingles serious enough to require hospitalization.

The European Medicines Agency has linked the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines to facial paralysis, tingling sensations and numbness. The E.M.A. also counts tinnitus as a side effect of the Johnson & Johnson vaccine, although the American health agencies do not. There are more than 17,000 reports of tinnitus following Covid vaccination in VAERS.

Are the two linked? It’s not clear. As many as one in four adults has some form of tinnitus. Stress, anxiety, grief and aging can lead to the condition, as can infections like Covid itself and the flu.

There is no test or scan for tinnitus, and scientists cannot easily study it because the inner ear is tiny, delicate and encased in bone, said Dr. Konstantina Stankovic, an otolaryngologist at Stanford University.

Still, an analysis of health records from nearly 2.6 million people in the United States found that about 0.04 percent , or about 1,000, were diagnosed with tinnitus within three weeks of their first mRNA shot. In March, researchers in Australia published a study linking tinnitus and vertigo to the vaccines .

The F.D.A. is monitoring reports of tinnitus, but “at this time, the available evidence does not suggest a causal association with the Covid-19 vaccines,” the agency said in a statement.

Despite surveillance efforts, U.S. officials were not the first to identify a significant Covid vaccine side effect: myocarditis in young people receiving mRNA vaccines. It was Israeli authorities who first raised the alarm in April 2021. Officials in the United States said at the time that they had not seen a link.

On May 22, 2021, news broke that the C.D.C. was investigating a “relatively few” cases of myocarditis. By June 23, the number of myocarditis reports in VAERS had risen to more than 1,200 — a hint that it is important to tell doctors and patients what to look for.

Later analyses showed that the risk for myocarditis and pericarditis, a related condition, is highest after a second dose of an mRNA Covid vaccine in adolescent males aged 12 to 17 years.

In many people, vaccine-related myocarditis is transient. But some patients continue to experience pain, breathlessness and depression, and some show persistent changes on heart scans . The C.D.C. has said there were no confirmed deaths related to myocarditis, but in fact there have been several accounts of deaths reported post-vaccination .

Pervasive Misinformation

The rise of the anti-vaccine movement has made it difficult for scientists, in and out of government, to candidly address potential side effects, some experts said. Much of the narrative on the purported dangers of Covid vaccines is patently false, or at least exaggerated, cooked up by savvy anti-vaccine campaigns.

Questions about Covid vaccine safety are core to Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s presidential campaign. Citing debunked theories about altered DNA, Florida’s surgeon general has called for a halt to Covid vaccination in the state.

“The sheer nature of misinformation, the scale of misinformation, is staggering, and anything will be twisted to make it seem like it’s not just a devastating side effect but proof of a massive cover-up,” said Dr. Joshua Sharfstein, a vice dean at Johns Hopkins University.

Among the hundreds of millions of Americans who were immunized for Covid, some number would have had heart attacks or strokes anyway. Some women would have miscarried. How to distinguish those caused by the vaccine from those that are coincidences? The only way to resolve the question is intense research .

But the National Institutes of Health is conducting virtually no studies on Covid vaccine safety, several experts noted. William Murphy, a cancer researcher who worked at the N.I.H. for 12 years, has been prodding federal health officials to initiate these studies since 2021.

The officials each responded with “that very tired mantra: ‘But the virus is worse,’” Dr. Murphy recalled. “Yes, the virus is worse, but that doesn’t obviate doing research to make sure that there may be other options.”

A deeper understanding of possible side effects, and who is at risk for them, could have implications for the design of future vaccines, or may indicate that for some young and healthy people, the benefit of Covid shots may no longer outweigh the risks — as some European countries have determined.

Thorough research might also speed assistance to thousands of Americans who say they were injured.

The federal government has long run the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program , designed to compensate people who suffer injuries after vaccination. Established more than three decades ago, the program sets no limit on the amounts awarded to people found to have been harmed.

But Covid vaccines are not covered by that fund because Congress has not made them subject to the excise tax that pays for it. Some lawmakers have introduced bills to make the change.

Instead, claims regarding Covid vaccines go to the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program . Intended for public health emergencies, this program has narrow criteria to pay out and sets a limit of $50,000, with stringent standards of proof.

It requires applicants to prove within a year of the injury that it was “the direct result” of getting the Covid vaccine, based on “compelling, reliable, valid, medical, and scientific evidence.”

The program had only four staff members at the beginning of the pandemic, and now has 35 people evaluating claims. Still, it has reviewed only a fraction of the 13,000 claims filed, and has paid out only a dozen.

Dr. Ilka Warshawsky, a 58-year-old pathologist, said she lost all hearing in her right ear after a Covid booster shot. But hearing loss is not a recognized side effect of Covid vaccination.

The compensation program for Covid vaccines sets a high bar for proof, she said, yet offers little information on how to meet it: “These adverse events can be debilitating and life-altering, and so it’s very upsetting that they’re not acknowledged or addressed.”

Dr. Zimmerman, the neuroscientist, submitted her application in October 2021 and provided dozens of supporting medical documents. She received a claim number only in January 2023.

In adjudicating her claim for workers’ compensation, Washington State officials accepted that Covid vaccination caused her injury, but she has yet to get a decision from the federal program.

One of her therapists recently told her she might never be able to live independently again.

“That felt like a devastating blow,” Dr. Zimmerman said. “But I’m trying not to lose hope there will someday be a treatment and a way to cover it.”

Apoorva Mandavilli is a reporter focused on science and global health. She was a part of the team that won the 2021 Pulitzer Prize for Public Service for coverage of the pandemic. More about Apoorva Mandavilli

Advertisement

Patient satisfaction with telemedicine in the Philippines during the COVID-19 pandemic: a mixed methods study

Affiliations.

• 1 School of Medicine and Public Health, Ateneo de Manila University, Pasig City, Philippines. [email protected].
• 2 School of Medicine and Public Health, Ateneo de Manila University, Pasig City, Philippines.
• 3 National Clinical Trials and Translation Center, National Institutes of Health, University of the Philippines Manila, Manila, Philippines.
• PMID: 36949479
• PMCID: PMC10032251
• DOI: 10.1186/s12913-023-09127-x

Background: The capacity to deliver essential health services has been negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly due to lockdown restrictions. Telemedicine provides a safe, efficient, and effective alternative that addresses the needs of patients and the health system. However, there remain implementation challenges and barriers to patient adoption in resource-limited settings as in the Philippines. This mixed methods study aimed to describe patient perspectives and experiences with telemedicine services, and explore the factors that influence telemedicine use and satisfaction.

Methods: An online survey consisting of items adapted from the Consumer Assessment of Healthcare Providers and Systems (CAHPS) Clinician & Group Adult Visit Survey 4.0 (beta) and the Telehealth Usability Questionnaire (TUQ) was completed by 200 participants aged 18 to 65 years residing in the Philippines. A subsample of 16 participants was interviewed to provide further insights on their experiences. We used descriptive statistics to analyze survey data and thematically analyzed data from interviews guided by the principles of grounded theory.

Results: Participants were generally satisfied with telemedicine, and found it to be an efficient and convenient means of receiving healthcare. About 3 in 5 perceived telemedicine as affordable, with some finding telemedicine costs to be high and comparable to in-person consultations. Our results suggest that participants preferred telemedicine services, especially in cases where they feel that their condition is not urgent and does not need extensive physical examination. Safety against COVID-19, privacy, accessibility, and availability of multiple communication platforms contributed to patient satisfaction with telemedicine. Negative perceptions of patients on quality of care and service related to their telemedicine provider, inherent limitations of telemedicine in the diagnosis and management of patients, perceived high costs especially for mental health conditions, and poor connectivity and other technological issues were barriers to telemedicine use and satisfaction.

Conclusion: Telemedicine is viewed as a safe, efficient, and affordable alternative to receiving care. Expectations of patients on costs and outcomes need to be managed by providers to increase satisfaction. Continued adoption of telemedicine will require improvements in technology infrastructure and technical support for patients, training and performance evaluation of providers to ensure quality of care and service, better patient communication to meet patient needs, and integration of telemedicine services in remote areas that have limited access to medical services. Telemedicine, to realize its full potential, should be centered in health equity - addressing patient barriers and needs, reducing health disparities across population groups and settings, and providing quality services to all.

Keywords: COVID-19; Patient satisfaction; Philippines; Telehealth; Telemedicine; Universal health care.

© 2023. The Author(s).

• COVID-19* / epidemiology
• Communicable Disease Control
• Patient Satisfaction
• Philippines / epidemiology
• Telemedicine* / methods

Grants and funding

• Ateneo Center of Research and Innovation/Ateneo Center of Research and Innovation