Trichome

Page 1
The Egyptian Journal of Hospital Medicine (January 2023) Vol. 90, Page 575-584
575
Received: 20/07/2022
Accepted: 22/09/2022
Impact of Home-Based Self-Isolation Abiding on Outcome of
COVID-19 Patients: An Exploratory Study in Egypt
Eman Hany Elsebaie1, Amany Ahmed Salem1, Mennatallah Said Hosney Shehata1,
Mohamed Tharwat Hegazy2, Ibrahim Naguib El Ebrashi3, Ahmed Sayed Kotb3,
Mariam Amr Amin3, Yousra Elsayed Diab3, Fady Nagy3, Sobhi Eid Rizk3, Christina Samir Ragheb3,
Alaa Abdallah Salah3, Hadeel Abd El Wahab4, Maha Hossam Al-Din Ibrahim3, Mohamed Abdelkader Morad5
1Public Health & Community Medicine Department, 2 Rheumatology and Clinical Immunology Unit, Internal Medicine
Department, 3 Internal Medicine Department, 4 Department of Chest diseases, 5 Clinical Haematology Unit, Internal
Medicine Department, Kasr Alainy, Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt
Corresponding author: Eman Hany Ahmed Elsebaie Email: eman.elsebaei@kasralainy.edu.eg Tel: 01005645129
ABSTRACT
Background: The ongoing Coronavirus Disease 19 (COVID-19) pandemic has caused an increased burden on healthcare
organizations and public health resources.
Objective: This study aimed to examine the potential impact of home-based self-isolation on health-related outcomes of
patients suffering from COVID-19, to assess patients' and household contacts’ compliance to physicians’ instructions while
isolated at home, and to explore predictors affecting home-based self-isolation compliance.
Methods: A cross-sectional analytical study of 393 mild/moderate adult cases of COVID-19 patients referred to home
isolation by Cairo University Hospital through the period from June 1st to September 30, 2020.
Results: The proportion of patients admitted to the hospital while isolated at home was 76 (19.3%). When examining the
factors contributing to hospital admission among the home isolation instructions measures, we found that 74.5% of those
who abide by the home isolation rules were not hospitalized compared to 25.5% hospitalized (P-value<0.001; OR= 11.8;
95% CI: 3.65–38.59). The infection rate among household contacts while patients isolated at home was 38.42%. About
66.8% of those who abided by the home isolation instructions did not infect contacts compared to 33.2% who got infection
(P-value=0.001; OR= 2.207; 95% CI: 1.404–4.807). Significant predictors for compliance with home-based isolation
instructions were the presence of hypertension, previous hospitalization, and absence of chronic liver diseases.
Conclusion: Compliance with isolation instructions and conforming to infection and control procedures are important
factors to decrease hospital visits and infection rates among household contacts.
Keywords: COVID-19, Home isolation, Outcome, Egypt, Impact, Feasibility, Follow-up.
INTRODUCTION
Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) is an
infectious disease of pandemic proportions, with more
than 85,000,000 cases and approximately 1,800,000
deaths reported worldwide as of January 3, 2021 (1).
COVID-19 is a public health emergency of
international concern (2), and as such, it requires
coordinated, protective responses from national and
supranational entities around the world. The absence of
specific preventive or therapeutic medical interventions
for COVID-19 infection, alongside its rapid transmission
rate and apparently substantial undocumented
contamination and transmission numbers, has led to the
scientifically sound recommendation that individuals
must stay home to avoid social interactions and restrain
the disease spread, thereby reducing pressure on health
systems worldwide. Therefore, physical distancing,
intensive contact tracing, and case isolation remain
frontline measures in controlling the spread of COVID-
19 infection (3).
In Egypt, with a population of over 100 million,
since most cases of COVID-19 are mild (4) and health care
resources limited, home-based self-isolation is a key
public health strategy to curb the spread of the pandemic
under the country’s coronavirus treatment protocol, mild
and moderate COVID-19 patients are treated at home or
at the university hostels, to free up beds for critical cases
at isolation hospitals. The total number of home-isolating
coronavirus patients in Egypt has so far reached 10,168
cases since the health ministry launched its program for
non-hospitalized cases in July 2020 (5).
Home-based self-isolation, however, has several
important limitations. For one, home-based isolation is
not effective in preventing transmissions within
households. In China, before the implementation of
facility-based isolation, more than half of COVID-19
patients had at least one family member with the disease,
and 75-80% of all clustered infections occurred within
families (6,7). In New York City, 66% of COVID-19 cases
were people who had stayed in their homes (8), suggesting
high rates of intra-family transmission of COVID-19.
Furthermore, it is difficult to achieve high compliance
with home-based isolation (9).
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
576
Studies have shown that home-based isolation decreases
non-household contacts of patients by only 10% to 50%
(10-12). A rigorous review concluded that 46–66% of
transmission is household-based (using the standard
formula for attributable fraction) (13).
Thus, home-based isolation may fail to effectively
prevent both household and non-household transmission
of COVID-19.
In this study, we aimed to examine the potential
impact of home-based isolation on the outcome of
patients suffering from COVID-19 in Egypt, to provide
policymakers evidence-based decision-making about the
impact of home-based isolation in mitigating the COVID-
19 pandemic.
Specific objectives: 1- To measure the proportion of
patients admitted to hospital or visited the emergency care
setting while isolated at home. 2- To estimate the
infection rate among household contacts while patients
isolated at home. 3- To determine the proportion of
patients with prolonged symptoms while isolated at home.
4- To assess patients' and household contacts’ compliance
to physicians’ instructions while isolated at home. 5- To
explore factors affecting home-based isolation abiding
and 6- To assess patients’ satisfaction regarding follow-
up phone calls.
Methods:
Study Design and setting: A cross-sectional analytical
study was conducted at Cairo University Hospitals to
assess the impact of home-based isolation on the outcome
of patients suffering from COVID-19 in Egypt.
Study population: The study was conducted on Egyptian
patients suffering from mild to moderate symptoms of
COVID-19.
Sample Size and Technique: A total sample of 393
patients diagnosed with COVID-19 who visited Cairo
University Hospital seeking treatment from the 1st of June
to the 30th of September 2020 were included and were
followed-up for 3 months.
Inclusion criteria: All Egyptian patients diagnosed with
mild symptoms of COVID-19, visited Cairo University
Hospital seeking treatment, giving their cell phone
numbers, and agreed to participate in the study, were
included.
Exclusion criteria: Patients with severe symptoms not
feasible for home isolation, patients refusing to give their
cell phone numbers or had no cell phones and patients
who couldn’t complete the questionnaire, or refusing to
complete the questionnaire.
Data Collection Tool:
A structured questionnaire, composed of 35 questions
was administered. Questions were presented in the Arabic
language. Content and face validity were checked by the
authors. The questionnaire was pretested on 20
participants who were later on omitted from the analysis.
The internal consistency of the study questionnaire was
assessed by calculating the Cronbach alpha (0.812). A
group of physicians (40) from different departments at the
Faculty of Medicine, Cairo University were assigned to
contact the patients and fill in the questionnaire. Each
physician was assigned to 10 patients and called them 3
times through the 14-day isolation period from 1st of June
to 30th of September 2020.
The questionnaire enclosed the following sections (I)
Demographic characters (4 items): age, gender,
occupation, phone number.
(II) Different Symptoms of COVID-19 (11 items).
(III) assessment of home based-isolation (14 items): the
need for hospital admission or emergency care,
satisfaction with phone calls, restriction to home isolation
rules, presence of a separate room with good ventilation,
presence of own bathroom, or sterilization of a shared
bathroom after each use, eating personal items, share
eating or sitting with family members, wearing a mask,
social distancing at home, using air conditioning or fan,
washing hands frequently with every use of tissue for
coughing or sneezing, measuring temperature daily, who
was helping with food preparation/cleaning, if family
members wearing masks and gloves when dealing with
him/her and if there were infections among household
contacts. The score used for assessment of home-based
isolation (14 items): correct responses assigned one point
while do not know or incorrect responses received nil.
Those who attained ≥ 8 points (out of 14 points, the 60th
percentile or average for the score) were assigned as
achieving good score, while those who attained < 8 points
were assigned as achieving bad score.
Ethical Consideration:
Objectives of the study were explained to the
participants, and they were completely free to accept
or refuse to participate. Strict confidentiality about
participants’ data (this was secured by the
questionnaire being anonymous) was maintained
throughout data collection, entry, and analysis
(according to the Helsinki declaration). This study was
approved by the Research Ethics Committee, Faculty
of Medicine, Cairo University (N- 83- 2020).
Data Analysis
The data were coded and exported on a data sheet
prepared on Excel program, version 2013. The statistical
package for social science (SPSS version 21) was used for
data analysis. Simple descriptive statistics were used for
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
577
the summary of quantitative data and frequencies used for
qualitative data. The bivariate relationship was displayed
in cross-tabulations and a comparison of proportions was
performed using the chi-square and Fisher’s exact tests
where appropriate.
Independent T-test, one-way ANOVA, and post-hook
tests were used to compare normally distributed
quantitative data. Pearson correlation was performed to
explore correlations between continuous variables. The
level of significance was set at probability P-value ≤ 0.05.
RESULTS
A total of 393 COVID-19 patients (43.8% males and
56.2% females) with a mean age of 37.6 ± 12 years, were
included in this study. Of the 393 COVID-19 patients, 316
(80.4%) had mild symptoms of COVID-19 while almost
19.6% had moderate ones. About 43.2% were from the
medical team members, 14.5% were smokers and the
most prevailing co-morbidities were previous treatment,
HTN, DM, cardiac diseases, lung diseases, and liver
diseases with 15.5%, 11.1%, 8.4%, 4.3%, 3.3%, and 1.6%
respectively (Table 1).
The proportion of patients admitted to the hospital
while isolated at home was 76 (19.3%). When examining
the factors contributing to hospital admission among the
home isolation instructions measures, we found that
74.5% of those who abided by the home isolation rules
were not hospitalized compared to 25.5% that were
hospitalized (P-value<0.001; OR= 11.8; 95% CI: 3.65–
38.59). Staying in a well ventilated separate room,
sterilization of the bathroom after each use, using
patient’s own personal utensils for eating, wearing a mask
while staying with family members for eating or
socializing, talking to others inside the house via mobile
phone or with at least two meters’ distance away from
them with a mask, lack of air conditioning or a fan,
washing hands frequently when using a tissue for
coughing or sneezing, measuring temperature daily,
presence of someone helping the patient for food
preparation and/or cleaning and wearing masks and
gloves while helping them, were significantly associated
(P-value<0.001) with the absence of hospital admission
or visiting emergency care setting (Table 2).
The infection rate among household contacts while
patients isolated at home was 38.42%. When analysing
compliance with home isolation instructions and
increased rate of infection among household contacts, we
detected that 66.8% of those who abided by the home
isolation rules, their contacts weren’t infected compared
to 33.2% who got an infection (P-value=0.001; OR=
2.207; 95% CI:1.404–4.807). Staying in a well ventilated
separate room (OR= 5.18; 95% CI:2.92–9.17), presence
of someone helping the patient for food preparation
and/or cleaning (OR= 2.94; 95% CI:1.79–4.84), wearing
masks and gloves while helping them (OR= 3.20; 95%
CI:2.08–4.92), using a private bathroom (OR= 2.31; 95%
CI:1.48–3.61), were significantly associated (P-
value<0.001) with the absence of infection among
household contacts (Table 3).
Symptoms lasting more than 21 days were
determined in 25.19% of the patients while remaining less
than 21 days in 74.8% of them. Patients who stayed in
a well-ventilated separate room and performed
sterilization of the bathroom after each use were 1.5 times
less associated to have prolonged symptoms (OR= 1.23;
95% CI:0.65–2.30) (OR= 1.45; 95% CI:0.82–2.59),
respectively (Table 4).
Patients who achieved a good score regarding abiding
with home-based isolation instructions were 73.53%. The
significant predictors for the good score were the presence
of hypertension, previous hospitalization, and absence of
chronic liver diseases (Table 5).
Table (1): Demographic and diseases characteristics of
the studied sample
% (100)
N (393)
Items
37.6±12
Age (Years)
Mean ± SD
Sex
43.8
172
Male
56.2
221
Female
14.5
57
Smokers
43.2
159
Medical team
member
Comorbidities
8.4
31
DM
11.1
41
HTN
4.3
16
Cardiac
3.3
12
Lung dis
1.6
6
Liver dis
4.9
18
Others
15.5
57
Previous TTT
19.3
76
Hospitalized
25.2
99
Prolonged duration
>=21 days
Severity of symptoms
80.4
316
Mild
19.6
77
Moderate
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
578
Table (2): Relation between home-based isolation abiding and hospital admission/ emergency room visit
Did you get hospitalized COVID-19
infection?
P-
value
OR
95% CI
Hospitalized Not hospitalized
N (76) %(100) N(317) %(100)
Lower upper
1. Did you abide by the home
isolation rules?
Yes
73
25.5
213
74.5 <0.001 11.881 3.657 38.595
No
3
2.8
104
97.2
2. Did you stay in a well
ventilated separate room?
Yes
74
22.8
251
77.2 <0.001 9.729
2.327 40.673
No
2
2.9
66
97.1
3. Did you use a separate Private
bathroom?
Yes
69
46.9
78
35.1 <0.001 30.203 13.324 68.467
No
7
2.8
239
97.2
4. was the bathroom sterilized
after each use?
Yes
71
23.4
232
76.6 <0.001 5.203
2.032 13.322
No
5
5.6
85
94.4
5. Did you use your own personal
utensils for eating?
Yes
72
21.3
266
78.7
0.016 3.451
1.207 9.867
No
4
7.3
51
92.7
6. Were you staying with your
family members while eating
or socializing?
Yes
63
36.8
108
63.
2
<0.001 9.378
4.942 17.797
No
13
5.9
209
94.1
7. If yes, did you wear a mask?
Yes
62
37.3
104
62.7 <0.001 9.070
4.852 16.955
No
14
6.2
213
93.8
8. Did you wear a mask while you
were alone in your room?
Yes
66
82.5
14
17.5 <0.001 142.843 60.806 335.561
No
10
3.2
303
96.8
9. Were you talking to others
inside the house via the mobile
phone or with at least two
meters’ distance away from
them with a mask?
Yes
69
30
161
70
<0.001 9.551
4.257 21.428
No
7
4.3
156
95.7
10.
Did you use air
conditioning or a fan?
Yes
65
30
152
10
<0.001 6.414
3.263 12.610
No
11
6.3
165
93.8
11.
Did you wash your hands
frequently when you used a
tissue for coughing or
sneezing?
Yes
74
21.3
273
78.7
0.005 5.963
1.413 25.173
No
2
4.3
44
95.7
12.
Did you measure your
temperature daily?
Yes
72
27.1
194
72.9 <0.001 11.412 4.067 32.027
No
4
3.1
123
96.9
13.
Is there anyone helping
you with food preparation /
cleaning
Yes
17
6.2
258
93.8 <0.001 15.151 8.264 27.777
No
59
50
59
50
14.
Whoever used to help you,
did they wear mask and gloves
when they prepared your
food? / or when they entered
the room for cleaning?
Yes
71
28.4
179
71.6 <0.001 10.947 4.304 27.848
No
5
3.5
138
96.5
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
579
Table (3): Relation between home-based isolation abiding and infection among household contacts
Were there any relatives that have got
infected?
P-value OR
95% CI
Yes
No
N (151) % (100) N (242) %(100)
Lower
Upper
1. Did you abide by the home
isolation rules?
Yes
95
33.2
191
66.8
0.001
2.207
1.404
4.807
No
56
52.3
51
47.7
2. Did you stay in a well
ventilated separate room?
Yes
103
31.7
222
68.3
<0.001
5.181
2.923
9.174
No
48
70.6
20
29.4
3. Did you use a separate Private
bathroom?
Yes
39
26.5
108
73.5
<0.001
2.314
1.485
3.610
No
112
45.5
134
54.5
4. was the bathroom sterilized
after each use?
Yes
114
37.6
189
62.4
0.622
.864
.535
1.396
No
37
41.1
53
58.9
5. Did you use your own personal
utensils for eating?
Yes
125
37
213
63
0.178
.655
.369
1.162
No
26
47.3
29
52.7
6. Were you staying with your
family members while eating
or socializing?
Yes
74
43.3
97
56.7
0.094
1.437
.954
2.164
No
77
34.7
145
65.3
7. If yes, did you wear a mask? Yes
51
30.7
115
69.3
0.009
1.776
1.165
2.702
No
100
44.1
127
55.9
8. Did you wear a mask while you
were alone in your room?
Yes
21
26.3
59
73.8
0.014
1.996
1.156
3.448
No
130
41.5
183
58.5
9. Were you talking to others
inside the house via the mobile
phone or with at least two
meters’ distance away from
them with a mask?
Yes
75
32.6
155
67.4
0.006
1.805
1.194
2.732
No
76
46.6
87
53.4
10. Did you use air
conditioning or a fan?
Yes
73
33.6
144
66.4
0.037
1.569
1.042
2.364
No
78
44.3
98
55.7
11. Did you wash your hands
frequently when you used a
tissue for coughing or
sneezing?
Yes
125
36
222
64
0.010
2.309
1.239
4.310
No
26
56.5
20
43.5
12. Did you measure your
temperature daily?
Yes
89
33.5
177
66.5
0.004
1.897
1.233
2.915
No
62
48.8
65
51.2
13. Who was helping you with
food preparation / cleaning
Yes
125
45.5
150
54.5
<0.001
2.949
1.796
4.841
No
26
22
92
78
14. Whoever used to help you, did
they wear mask and gloves
when they prepared your
food? / or when they entered
the room for cleaning?
Yes
71
28.4
179
71.6
<0.001
3.205
2.083
4.926
No
80
55.9
63
44.1
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
580
Table (4): Relation between home based isolation abiding and prolongation of symptoms
PROLONGED SYMPTOMS P-
value
OR
95% CI
Yes
No
N (99) %(100) N(294)
%
(100)
Lower Upper
1. Did you abide by the home
isolation rules?
Yes
71
24.8
215 75.2 0.795 .932 .561 1.548
No
28
26.2
79
73.8
2. Did you stay in a well ventilated
separate room ?
Yes
84
25.8
241 74.2 0.645 1.232 .659 2.300
No
15
22.1
53
77.9
3. Did you use a separate Private
bathroom?
Yes
33
22.4
114 77.6 0.401 .789 .489 1.275
No
66
26.8
180 73.2
4. was the bathroom sterilized after
each use?
Yes
81
26.7
222 73.3 0.216 1.459 .821 2.596
No
18
20
72
80
5. Did you use your own personal
utensils for eating?
Yes
84
24.9
254 75.1 0.738 .882 .464 1.677
No
15
27.3
40
72.7
6. Were you staying with your family
members while eating or
socializing?
Yes
37
21.6
134 78.4 0.162 .713 .447 1.137
No
62
27.9
160 72.1
7. If yes, did you wear a mask?
Yes
37
22.3
129 77.7 0.290 .763 .478 1.219
No
62
27.3
165 72.7
8. Did you wear a mask while you
were alone in your room?
Yes
22
27.5
58
72.5 0.665 1.163 .668 2.023
No
77
24.6
236 75.4
9. Were you talking to others inside
the house via the mobile phone or
with at least two meters’ distance
away from them with a mask?
Yes
52
22.6
178 77.4 0.194 .721 .456 1.141
No
47
28.8
116 71.2
10. Did you use air conditioning or a
fan?
Yes
48
22.1
169 77.9 0.130 .696 .441 1.099
No
51
29
125
71
11. Did you wash your hands
frequently when you used a tissue
for coughing or sneezing?
Yes
85
24.5
262 75.5 0.372 .742 .378 1.455
No
14
30.4
32
69.6
12. Did you measure your
temperature daily?
Yes
70
26.3
196 73.7 0.535 1.207 .735 1.982
No
29
22.8
98
77.2
13. Who was helping you with food
preparation / cleaning
Yes
65
23.6
210 76.4 0.311 .765 .470 1.243
No
34
28.8
84
71.2
14. Whoever used to help you, did they
wear mask and gloves when they
prepared your food? / or when
they entered the room for
cleaning?
Yes
64
25.6
186 74.4 0.904 1.062 .660 1.708
No
35
24.5
108 75.5
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
581
Table (5): Predictors of home based-isolation abiding
Home-based isolation abiding score Mean ±SD (61.8±21.5%)
Home based isolation abiding score P-value OR
95% CI
Good
Bad
N (289) % (100) N (104) % (100)
Lower
Upper
Symptomatic
Yes
245
72.5
93
27.5
1
.958
.412
2.227
No
22
73.3
8
26.7
Severity
Mild
213
72.9
79
27.1
0.773 1.098 .628
1.921
Moderate
54
71.1
22
28.9
Gender
Female
163
73.8
58
26.2
0.909 1.026 .653
1.611
Male
126
73.3
46
26.7
Smoking
Yes
39
68.4
18
31.6
0.335 .745
.405
1.372
No
250
74.4
86
25.6
DM
Yes
23
71.9
9
28.1
0.837 .932
.416
2.088
No
255
73.3
93
26.7
HTN
Yes
24
58.5
17
41.5
0.038 2.118 1.084
4.132
No
254
74.9
85
25.1
Heart diseases
Yes
11
68.8
5
31.3
0.773 .799
.271
2.359
No
267
73.4
97
26.6
Chronic liver
Yes
1
16.7
5
83.3
0.006 14.285 1.647
125
No
277
74.1
97
25.9
Chronic chest
Yes
8
66.7
4
33.3
0.741 .726
.214
2.464
No
270
73.4
98
26.6
Other chronic
condition
Yes
18
81.8
4
18.2
0.460 1.696 .560
5.137
No
260
72.6
98
27.4
Medications
Yes
44
73.3
16
26.7
1
1.011 .542
1.885
No
234
73.1
86
26.9
Hospitalized
Yes
73
96.1
3
3.9
<0.001 11.378 3.501
36.974
No
216
68.1
101
31.9
Medical personal
Yes
119
74.8
40
25.2
0.411 1.226 .769
1.954
No
148
70.8
61
29.2
Marital status
Single
75
75
25
25
0.694 1.138 .674
1.920
Married
203
12.5
77
27.5
Prolonged duration
≥21 days
71
71.7
28
28.3
0.693 .884
.531
1.471
<21 days
218
74.1
76
25.9
Have you been to
the emergency
room
Yes
22
75.9
7
24.1
1
1.142 .473
2.757
No
267
73.4
97
26.6
Daily follow up
Yes
205
73.2
75
26.8
0.9
.944
.573
1.553
No
84
74.3
29
25.7
Do you serve yourself
Yes
206
74.9
69
25.1
0.383 1.259 .779
2.034
No
83
70.3
35
29.7
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
582
DISCUSSION
COVID-19 or SARS-CoV-2 is a viral infection
transmitted through exposure to infectious respiratory
fluid (14). The best approach to control a respiratory
disease outbreak is the isolation of the patients at
healthcare facilities with appropriate respiratory
precautions. However, this will lead to a shortage of beds
at healthcare facilities for those in need of respiratory
support (15) so alternative strategies to curb the spread are
necessary. In August 2020, the World Health
Organization (WHO) released guidance for home care for
suspected or confirmed COVID-19 cases and their
contacts. The criteria to decide home isolation should be
based on the following: assessment of their clinical
presentation, home condition, and the plausibility for
follow-up at home (16). Recommendations for the contacts
were also mentioned in this guide as limiting the number
of caregivers to only one healthy person, avoid entering
the room of the isolated person if not possible at least keep
1 meter distance, limit patient movements and keep
shared spaces well ventilated, avoid visitors, perform
hand hygiene according to the WHO five moments,
wearing a face mask, proper cleaning, disinfection, and
waste management (16).
In the current study, the total number of patients was
393 COVID-19 patients (43.8% males and 56.2%
females) with a mean age of 37.6 ± 12 years. Of the 393
COVID-19 patients, 316 (80.4%) had mild symptoms of
COVID-19, while almost 19.6% had moderate ones.
About 43.2% were from the medical team members,
14.5% were smokers and the most prevailing co-
morbidities were previous treatment, HTN, DM, cardiac
diseases, lung diseases, and liver diseases with 15.5%,
11.1%, 8.4%, 4.3%, 3.3%, and 1.6% respectively. The
proportion of patients admitted to the hospital while
isolated at home was 76 (19.3%). A study performed in
the outpatient clinic of Hacettepe University Adult
Hospital in Ankara showed that 41 patients with COVID-
19 were followed on home isolation without hospital
admission. The median age of the patients was 36 years,
58.5% were female, 70.7% patients were healthcare
workers, 46.3% patients were current smokers and four
(9.8%) were readmitted to the outpatient clinic and
hospitalized (15). Another study in Italy showed the
following characteristics of home isolated patients out of
the 77 patients in home isolation males were 55%, the age
median was 45, and out of 48 subjects, 24 were healthcare
workers (50%). Regarding symptoms 13 (17%) were
asymptomatic and 64 (83%) had few symptoms. Out of
75, there were 28 subjects with underlying chronic
disease (36%) as following: Hypertension (27%),
diabetes (4%), cardiovascular disease (9%), chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease (4%), and chronic kidney
disease (4%) (17).
The age of the patients is deliberated during the
assessment before considering home isolation for
COVID-19 patients. According to the Egyptian, May
2020 version of the protocol for the management of
COVID-19 patients, patients with mild symptoms but
their age is 60 or above should be isolated at a healthcare
facility (18). This could interpret the mean age in the
current study (37.6). On the other side, the median age of
patients in hospitalized patients tends to be higher for
example in one of the multicenter studies in Wuhan China
showed that among 191 inpatients median age was 56
years, and also concluded that mortality increases with
increased age (19).
Regarding healthcare workers and their risk, many
emergent viral infections are recognized to affect
healthcare workers as in the current COVID-19 pandemic
(20 &21). 29% of COVID-19 patients detected in early cases
were healthcare workers (22). Mortalities among
healthcare workers with COVID-19 are rare and affect
mainly older healthcare workers above 50 years (23 &24).
As mentioned above the percentage of health care
workers among home isolated patients in the current study
were 43.2%, while in the Italian and Turkish study the
percentages were 50% and 70.7% respectively. the former
Italian study mentioned that health care workers are more
likely to be early diagnosed as a part of hospital
surveillance, also they are confident to monitor
themselves at home setting and can communicate with
their colleagues more than the general population (17).
In the current study, the following were significantly
associated with the absence of hospital admission or
visiting emergency care setting: Staying in a well
ventilated separate room, sterilization of the bathroom
after each use, using patient’s own personal utensils for
eating, wearing a mask while staying with family
members for eating or socializing, talking to others inside
the house via mobile phone or with at least two meters’
distance away from them with a mask, lack of air
conditioning or a fan, washing hands frequently when
using a tissue for coughing or sneezing, measuring
temperature daily, presence of someone helping the
patient for food preparation and/or cleaning and wearing
masks and gloves while helping them. Most of these
factors were highlighted in all guidelines for home
isolation including WHO and CDC (16, 25).
In the current study, the infection rate among
household contacts while patients isolated at home was
38.42%. After analysing compliance with home isolation
instructions, the study detected that 66.8% of those who
abided by the home isolation rules, their contacts weren’t
infected compared to 33.2% who got an infection (P-
value=0.001; OR= 2.207; 95% CI:1.404–4.807). Staying
in a well ventilated separate room (OR= 5.18; 95%
CI:2.92–9.17), presence of someone helping the patient
for food preparation and/or cleaning (OR= 2.94; 95%
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
583
CI:1.79–4.84), wearing masks and gloves while helping
them (OR= 3.20; 95% CI:2.08–4.92) and using a private
bathroom (OR= 2.31; 95% CI:1.48–3.61), were
significantly associated (P-value<0.001) with the absence
of infection among household contacts. This was reflected
also in a review study stated that although home-based
care isolation increases the probability of familial
transmission especially among spouses and in households
with large numbers of inhabitants, however, the
obedience to infection prevention and control measures
was described as a chance for decreasing the transmission
of COVID-19 to household contacts. Hand hygiene plus
wearing face masks, disinfection, and household
ventilation decrease household COVID-19 transmission
(26). In the study performed in Turkey out of 33 household
contacts, 12 (36.4%) of them were detected as positive.
Also, the study mentioned that proper isolation of cases at
home, with proper monitoring and testing of contacts, are
vital to decreasing household contact infection (15).
In the current study, symptoms lasting more than 21
days were determined in 25.19% of the patients, while
remaining less than 21 days were in 74.8%) of them. A
report mentioned that even in adult patients managed in
outpatient settings symptoms took weeks to resolve. In
one-third of the studied respondents reported more than
2-3 weeks to return to their usual health. This report
mentioned also that one in five young adults aged 18–34
years who had no chronic conditions, reported that they
didn’t resume their regular health state 14–21 days after
testing. The same report recommended delivering health
messages targeting populations that might not perceive
new coronavirus disease as being severe or prolonged,
including young adults and those without chronic
underlying medical conditions. Also, it strongly
encouraged the following measures to decrease the rate of
infection such as social distancing, hand wash, and the use
of face masks (27).
LIMITATION OF THE STUDY
This study limitation included absence of a
comparative group of hospitalized patients to test the
predictors and comorbidity association on the outcome of
COVID-19 cases and the limited research mentioning the
obedience to home isolation precautionary measures and
COVID-19 outcome in the cases.
CONCLUSION
Home isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic is
used to manage mild cases instead of facility isolation.
Evaluation of the housing condition, environment,
education, and other socioeconomic factors are important.
Compliance with isolation precautions and conforming to
infection and control procedures are important factors to
decrease hospital visits and infection rates among
household contacts.
RECOMMENDATIONS
At the research level testing predictors and
comorbidity association on the outcome of COVID-19
cases among patients with different severity, also its effect
on infection rates among household contacts. A
comparison arm is vital to examine this association.
At the policy level improving the surveillance
process for early detection and proper management of
infected cases, also strengthening the system to properly
follow up the home isolated patient to ensure conforming
to infection control practices. Training is vital for health
care providers following cases isolated at home. Health
education is essential for the cases and the contacts to
guarantee compliance.
List of Abbreviation:
COVID-19: Corona virus disease
OR: Odds Ratio
SPSS: Social package of statistical sciences
SARS-Cov-2: severe acute respiratory syndrome
WHO: World Health Organization
CDC: Center of Disease Control.
Availability of data and material: The data sets used
and/or analyzed during the current study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Competing interests: The authors declared that they had
no competing interests.
Funding: Self-fund.
Acknowledgements: The authors are thankful to the
Manager of Cairo University Hospital for conducting this
study. The authors also express gratitude to all physicians,
nursing staff, patients and their relatives who helped the
researchers during the data collection process.
REFERENCES
1. World meters statistics (2021): Coronavirus disease
(COVID-19)
pandemic.
Retrieved
from:
2. World Health Organization (2020): Statement on the
Second Meeting of the International Health Regulations
(2005) Emergency Committee Regarding the Outbreak of
Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV). Retrieved from:
https://www.
who.int/news-room/detail/30-01-2020-
statement-on-the-second-meetingof-the-international-
health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-
committeeregarding-the-outbreak-of-novel-coronavirus.
3. Wilder-Smith A, Freedman D (2020): Isolation,
quarantine, social distancing and community containment:
pivotal role for old-style public health measures in the
novel
coronavirus
(2019-nCoV)
outbreak.
4. Wu Z, McGoogan J ((2020): Characteristics of and
important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019
https://ejhm.journals.ekb.eg/
584
(COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72
314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and
Prevention. JAMA., 323 (13): 1239.
5. Center for disease prevention and control (2021):
Isolation and Precautions for People with COVID-19.
Available at:
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-
ncov/your-health/isolation.html
6. Tian S, Hu N, Lou J et al. (2020): Characteristics of
COVID-19 infection in Beijing. J Infect., 80 (4): 401-6.
7. World Health Organization (2020): Report of the WHO-
China joint mission on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-
19).
Geneva,
Switzerland,
2020.
Available
8. CNBC website (2020): Cuomo says it’s ‘shocking’ most
new coronavirus hospitalizations are people who had been
staying
home.
Available
at:
9. Las Vegas Review Journal (2020): COVID-19 nursing
home patients not isolated — 7 dead, 38 infected.
Available
at:
10. Haber M, Shay D, Davis X et al. (2007): Effectiveness of
interventions to reduce contact rates during a simulated
influenza pandemic. Emerging infectious diseases, 13 (4):
581.
11. Ferguson N, Laydon D, Nedjati-Gilani G et al. (2020):
Impact of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) to
reduce COVID-19 mortality and healthcare demand.
https://www.imperial.ac.uk/media/imperial-
college/medicine/mrc-gida/2020-03-16-COVID19-
Report-9.pdf
12. Hendrickx D, Abrams S, Hens N (2019): The impact of
behavioral interventions on co-infection dynamics: an
exploration of the effects of home isolation. J Theor Biol.,
476: 5-18.
13. Lee E, Wada N, Grabowski M et al. (2020): The engines
of SARS-CoV-2 spread. Science, 370 (6515): 406-7.
14. Center for disease prevention and control (2021):
Scientific Brief: SARS-CoV-2 Transmission. Available at:
15. Ayaz C, Dizman G, Metan G et al. (2020): Out-patient
management of patients with COVID-19 on home
isolation. Infez Med., 28 (3): 351-356.
16. World Health Organization (2020): Home care for
patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and
management of their contacts: interim guidance. Available
at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/333782.
17. Pisaturo M, De Angelis G, Maggi P et al. (2021):
Clinical Features of Patients with Home Isolation Sars-
Cov-2 Infection: A Multicenter Retrospective Study in
Southern Italy. Life, 11: 347.
18. Masoud H, Elassal G, Zaky S (2020): Management
protocol for COVID-19 patients, version 1.4, 30th May
2020. Ministry of Health and Population (MOHP), Egypt.
Coronavirus
Disease.
nagement
_Protocol_for_COVID-
19_Patients_MoHP_Protocol_for_COVID19_November_
2020
19. Zhou F, Yu T, Du R et al. (2020): Clinical course and risk
factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in
Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet, 395
(10229): 1054-1062.
20. Suwantarat N, Apisarnthanarak A (2015): Risks to
healthcare workers with emerging diseases: lessons from
MERS-CoV, Ebola, SARS, and avian flu. Curr Opin Infect
Dis., 28: 349–61.
21. Wang Y, Wang Y, Chen Y et al. (2019): Unique
epidemiological and clinical features of the emerging 2019
novel coronavirus pneumonia (COVID-19) implicate
special control measures. J Med Virol., 92: 568–76.
22. Wang D, Hu B, Hu C et al. (2020): Clinical characteristics
of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019 novel coronavirus-
infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA., 323: 1061–
69.
23. CDC (2020): Characteristics of health care personnel with
COVID-19—United States. MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly
Rep., 69: 477–81.
24. Wu Z, McGoogan J (2020): Characteristics of and
important lessons from the coronavirus disease 2019
(COVID-19) outbreak in China: summary of a report of 72
314 cases from the Chinese Center for Disease Control and
Prevention. JAMA., 323: 1239–42.
25. Center for disease prevention and control (2021): If You
Are Sick or Caring for Someone. Available at:
26. Ilesanmi O, Afolabi A (2021): A scope review on home-
based care practices for COVID-19: What Nigeria can
learn from other countries. Ibom Med J., 14 (1): 1-9.
Tenforde M, Kim S, Lindsell C et al. (2020): Symptom
Duration and Risk Factors for Delayed Return to Usual
Health Among Outpatients with COVID-19 in a Multistate
Health Care Systems Network — United States. MMWR
Morb Mortal Wkly Rep., 69: 993-998.

Leave a Reply