In:
BMC Medical Research Methodology, Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Vol. 21, No. 1 ( 2021-12)
Abstract:
The COVID-19 pandemic has become a source of fear across the world. Measuring the level or significance of fear in different populations may help identify populations and areas in need of public health and education campaigns. We were interested in diagnostic tests developed to assess or diagnose COVID-19-related fear or phobia. Methods We performed a systematic review of studies that examined instruments diagnosing or assessing fear or phobia of COVID-19 (PROSPERO registration: CRD42020197100). We utilized the Norwegian Institute of Public Health’s Live map of covid-19 evidence , a database of pre-screened and pre-categorized studies. The Live map of covid-19 evidence identified references published since 1 December 2019 in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Following biweekly searches, two researchers independently categorized all studies according to topic (seven main topics, 52 subordinate topics), population (41 available groups), study design, and publication type. For this review, we assessed for eligibility all studies that had been categorized to the topic “ Experiences and perceptions, consequences; social, political, economic aspects” as of 25 September 2020, in addition to hand-searching included studies’ reference lists. We meta-analyzed correlation coefficients of fear scores to the most common reference tests (self-reports of anxiety, depression, and stress), and reported additional concurrent validity to other reference tests such as specific phobias. We assessed study quality using the QUADAS-2 for the minority of studies that presented diagnostic accuracy statistics. Results We found 18 studies that validated fear instruments. Fifteen validated the Fear of COVID-19 scale (FCV-19S). We found no studies that proposed a diagnosis of fear of COVID-19 or a threshold of significant/clinical versus non-significant/subclinical fear. Study quality was low, with the most common potential biases related to sampling strategy and un-blinded data analysis. The FSV-19S total score correlated strongly with severe phobia ( r = 0.703, 95%CI 0.634–0.761) in one study, and moderately with anxiety in a meta-analysis. Conclusions The accuracy of the FSV-19S needs to be measured further using fear-related reference instruments, and future studies need to provide cut-off scores and normative values. Further evaluation of the remaining three instruments is required.
Type of Medium:
Online Resource
ISSN:
1471-2288
DOI:
10.1186/s12874-021-01262-5
Language:
English
Publisher:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Publication Date:
2021
detail.hit.zdb_id:
2041362-2
Bookmarklink
