4.7 Article

Applying fuzzy qualitative comparative analysis to identify typical symptoms of COVID-19 infection in a primary care unit, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

Journal

SCIENTIFIC REPORTS
Volume 12, Issue 1, Pages -

Publisher

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41598-022-26283-y

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study utilizes the fsQCA method to identify a set of symptoms that could potentially predict SARS-CoV-2 cases. By collecting symptom information and conducting analysis with fsQCA, configurations associated with positive and negative cases were identified. The findings may have implications for clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 in scenarios where diagnostic tests are unavailable.
This study aims to identify a set of symptoms that could be predictive of SARS-CoV-2 cases in the triage of Primary Care services with the contribution of Qualitative Comparative Analysis (QCA) using Fuzzy Sets (fsQCA). A cross-sectional study was carried out in a Primary Health Care Unit/FIOCRUZ from 09/17/2020 to 05/05/2021. The study population was suspect cases that performed diagnostic tests for COVID-19. We collected information about the symptoms to identify which configurations are associated with positive and negative cases. For analysis, we used fsQCA to explain the outcomes being a positive case and not being a positive case . The solution term loss of taste or smell and no headache showed the highest degree of association with the positive result (consistency = 0.81). The solution term absence of loss of taste or smell combined with the absence of fever showed the highest degree of association (consistency = 0,79) and is the one that proportionally best explains the negative result. Our results may be useful to the presumptive clinical diagnosis of COVID-19 in scenarios where access to diagnostic tests is not available. We used an innovative method used in complex problems in Public Health, the fsQCA.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available