People often confuse smell loss with taste loss, so it is unclear how much gustatory function is reduced in patients self-reporting taste loss. Our pre-registered cross-sectional study design included an online survey in 12 languages with instructions for self-administering chemosensory tests with 10 household items. Between June 2020 and March 2021, 10,953 individuals participated. Of these, 5,225 self-reported a respiratory illness and were grouped based on their reported COVID test results: COVID-positive (COVID+, N = 3,356), COVID-negative (COVID−, N = 602), and COVID unknown for those waiting for a test result (COVID?, N = 1,267). The participants who reported no respiratory illness were grouped by symptoms: sudden smell/taste changes (STC, N = 4,445), other symptoms excluding smell or taste changes (OthS, N = 832), and no symptoms (NoS, N = 416). Taste, smell, and oral irritation intensities and self-assessed abilities were rated on visual analog scales. Compared to the NoS group, COVID+ was associated with a 21% reduction in taste (95% confidence interval (CI): 15–28%), 47% in smell (95% CI: 37–56%), and 17% in oral irritation (95% CI: 10–25%) intensity. There were medium to strong correlations between perceived intensities and self-reported abilities (r = 0.84 for smell, r = 0.68 for taste, and r = 0.37 for oral irritation). Our study demonstrates that COVID-19-positive individuals report taste dysfunction when self-tested with stimuli that have little to none olfactory components. Assessing the smell and taste intensity of household items is a promising, cost-effective screening tool that complements self-reports and may help to disentangle taste loss from smell loss. However, it does not replace standardized validated psychophysical tests.
- Award ID(s):
- 2031546
- PAR ID:
- 10265904
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- JMIR Formative Research
- Volume:
- 5
- Issue:
- 5
- ISSN:
- 2561-326X
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- e23009
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
Abstract -
Abstract Background COVID‐19 was associated with significant financial hardship and increased binge eating (BE). However, it is largely unknown whether financial stressors contributed to BE during the pandemic. We used a longitudinal, cotwin control design that controls for genetic/environmental confounds by comparing twins in the same family to examine whether financial hardship during COVID‐19 was associated with BE.
Methods Female twins (
N = 158;M age = 22.13) from the Michigan State University Twin Registry rated financial stressors (e.g., inability to afford necessities) daily for 49 consecutive days during COVID‐19. We first examined whether financial hardship was associated with BE phenotypes across the full sample. We then examined whether cotwins who differed on financial hardship also differed in BE.Results Participants who experienced greater mean financial hardship across the study had significantly greater dimensional BE symptoms, and participants who experienced greater financial hardship on a given day reported significantly more emotional eating that day. These results were replicated in cotwin control analyses. Twins who experienced more financial hardship than their cotwin across the study reported greater dimensional BE symptoms than their cotwin, and participants who experienced more financial hardship than their cotwin on a given day reported greater emotional eating that day. Results were identical when restricting analyses to monozygotic twins, suggesting associations were not due to genetic confounds.
Conclusions Results suggest that BE‐related symptoms may be elevated in women who experienced financial hardship during COVID‐19 independent of potential genetic/environmental confounds. However, additional research in larger samples is needed.
Public Significance Little is known regarding how financial difficulties during the COVID‐19 pandemic may have contributed to increased binge eating (BE). We found preliminary evidence that financial hardship during COVID‐19 may be associated with greater rates of BE‐related symptoms even when comparing twins from the same family. While additional research is needed, results suggest that people who experienced financial hardship during COVID‐19 may be at increased risk for BE.
-
Abstract Children less than 18 years of age account for an estimated 2%–5% of reported severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) cases globally. Lower prevalence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) among children, in addition to higher numbers of mild and asymptomatic cases, continues to provide challenges in determining appropriate prevention and treatment courses. Here, we summarize the current evidence on the transmission, clinical presentation, complications and risk factors in regard to SARS‐CoV‐2 in children, and highlight crucial gaps in knowledge going forward. Based on current evidence, children are rarely the primary source of secondary transmission in the household or in child care and school settings and are more likely to contract the virus from an adult household member. Higher transmission rates are observed in older children (10–19 years old) compared with younger children ( <10 years old). While increasing incidence of COVID‐19 in neonates raises the suspicion of vertical transmission, it is unlikely that breast milk is a vehicle for transmission from mother to infant. The vast majority of clinical cases of COVID‐19 in children are mild, but there are rare cases that have developed complications such as multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children, which often presents with severe cardiac symptoms requiring intensive care. Childhood obesity is associated with a higher risk of infection and a more severe clinical presentation. Although immediate mortality rates among children are low, long‐term respiratory, and developmental implications of the disease remain unknown in this young and vulnerable population.
-
People who believe they are invulnerable to infectious diseases often fail to protect themselves against the disease threats that others pose to them. The current paper hypothesizes that social pain—the experience of feeling interpersonally hurt or rejected—can sensitize the behavioral-immune system by giving people added reason to see others as worthy of protecting themselves against. We obtained four daily diary samples involving 2,794 participants who reported how hurt/rejected they felt by those they knew, how personally concerned they were about the spread of illness/COVID-19, and how vigilantly they engaged in self-protective behaviors to safeguard their health each day. An integrative data analysis revealed robust evidence that people who believed they were invulnerable to infectious disease engaged in more concerted efforts to protect themselves against the greater daily risk of contracting COVID-19 when being in acute social pain gave them added reason to see others as harmful to them.
-
Importance The frequent occurrence of cognitive symptoms in post–COVID-19 condition has been described, but the nature of these symptoms and their demographic and functional factors are not well characterized in generalizable populations.
Objective To investigate the prevalence of self-reported cognitive symptoms in post–COVID-19 condition, in comparison with individuals with prior acute SARS-CoV-2 infection who did not develop post–COVID-19 condition, and their association with other individual features, including depressive symptoms and functional status.
Design, Setting, and Participants Two waves of a 50-state nonprobability population-based internet survey conducted between December 22, 2022, and May 5, 2023. Participants included survey respondents aged 18 years and older.
Exposure Post–COVID-19 condition, defined as self-report of symptoms attributed to COVID-19 beyond 2 months after the initial month of illness.
Main Outcomes and Measures Seven items from the Neuro-QoL cognition battery assessing the frequency of cognitive symptoms in the past week and patient Health Questionnaire-9.
Results The 14 767 individuals reporting test-confirmed COVID-19 illness at least 2 months before the survey had a mean (SD) age of 44.6 (16.3) years; 568 (3.8%) were Asian, 1484 (10.0%) were Black, 1408 (9.5%) were Hispanic, and 10 811 (73.2%) were White. A total of 10 037 respondents (68.0%) were women and 4730 (32.0%) were men. Of the 1683 individuals reporting post–COVID-19 condition, 955 (56.7%) reported at least 1 cognitive symptom experienced daily, compared with 3552 of 13 084 (27.1%) of those who did not report post–COVID-19 condition. More daily cognitive symptoms were associated with a greater likelihood of reporting at least moderate interference with functioning (unadjusted odds ratio [OR], 1.31 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]; adjusted [AOR], 1.30 [95% CI, 1.25-1.36]), lesser likelihood of full-time employment (unadjusted OR, 0.95 [95% CI, 0.91-0.99]; AOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.96]) and greater severity of depressive symptoms (unadjusted coefficient, 1.40 [95% CI, 1.29-1.51]; adjusted coefficient 1.27 [95% CI, 1.17-1.38). After including depressive symptoms in regression models, associations were also found between cognitive symptoms and at least moderate interference with everyday functioning (AOR, 1.27 [95% CI, 1.21-1.33]) and between cognitive symptoms and lower odds of full-time employment (AOR, 0.92 [95% CI, 0.88-0.97]).
Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this survey study of US adults suggest that cognitive symptoms are common among individuals with post–COVID-19 condition and associated with greater self-reported functional impairment, lesser likelihood of full-time employment, and greater depressive symptom severity. Screening for and addressing cognitive symptoms is an important component of the public health response to post–COVID-19 condition.