ArticleAnnals of medicine and surgery (2012)2024
Lived experiences of COVID-19 disease: a qualitative meta-synthesis.
Article in Annals of medicine and surgery (2012), 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, various aspects of human life were changed around the world. The present study aimed to provide a systematic review of the available evidence on lived experiences of the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods: This is a systematic review of the meta-synthesis type. Evidence from studies from 2019 to 2021 was used. Keywords of lived experiences, experiences, people, nation, patients, community, COVID-19, corona, and corona disease were searched in PubMed, Science Direct, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases. The Newcastle-Ottawa scale was used to evaluate the quality of articles. A qualitative meta-synthesis was performed by a researcher based on a three-step meta-synthesis method described by Thomas and colleagues. MAXQDA 10 was used for data analysis. The present study is based on the guidelines for Enhancing transparency in reporting the meta-synthesis of qualitative research (ENTREQ). The reliability of this study had a Kappa coefficient of 0.660 with a consistency rate of 98.766%. Results: Finally, the data from 11 articles were analyzed. The main and sub-themes obtained in this study included negative aspects (chaos, hustle associated, dualities, bad body, value decay, seclusion, psychological challenges) as well as positive aspects (opportunities arising from the individual, family, and social stability). Conclusion: Problems of life during COVID-19 should be considered as part of the COVID-19 pandemic care program. Individual assessments should normally be considered in a public health crisis. It is recommended to conduct serious, in-depth, and practical research in this field.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.