Search

Context: Digital therapeutics are growing as a solution to improve access and quality of care. Increasing evidence has shown the efficacy of digital therapeutics in managing pain for patients, but they are underutilized by primary care providers who see over half of the patients with chronic pain. Engaging providers to develop and use digital therapeutics with patients in chronic pain management has become necessary. Objective: This study explored primary care providers' challenges and strategies in chronic pain management to identify needs and practice gaps that inform development of digital therapeutics for chronic pain. Study Design: Qualitative study, using a human-centered design approach. Setting: Eleven providers from four primary care clinics in Washington and Colorado participated in semistructured interviews between July and October 2021. Population studied: The sample (N=11) included seven primary care physicians, two behavioral health providers, one physician assistant and one nurse. Most providers worked in clinics affiliated with urban, academic health systems or in federally qualified health centers. Outcomes: Interviews focused on provider goals in chronic pain management, challenges and strategies used, and perceptions of digital therapeutics. Results: Four themes related to provider needs emerged: patient-provider alliance, team-based care, tracking and monitoring, and social determinants of health. Providers desired resources to streamline pain education, counseling, and goal setting with patients. Greater accessibility to multidisciplinary care team consultations and nonpharmacological pain treatments would be beneficial to providers and patients. Infrastructure and systems are needed for providers to systematically track and monitor patients' pain. Providers requested assistance with connecting underserved patients to wraparound social services and addressing healthcare access barriers. Conclusion: Digital therapeutics for chronic pain would benefit from incorporating multimodal features that strengthen patient-provider alliance, increase access to non-pharmacological treatment options, support population health tracking and management, and provide equitable solutions that require lower sophistication of device and Internet access. Leveraging digital therapeutics in healthcare settings requires meeting provider needs at individual care and system levels. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Context: Rising prevalence of both mental health and substance use disorders, exacerbated by the COVID-19 pandemic, have left many individuals with limited access to behavioral health care. Integrating behavioral health into primary care has been shown to increase behavioral healthcare access and improve outcomes. However, little is known about the characteristics and distribution of family physicians working collaboratively with behavioral health clinicians. Objective: To describe the demographic and practice characteristics of family physicians who work collaboratively with behavioral health clinicians. Study design and Analysis: Cross-sectional survey with chi-squared independence tests and logistic regression. Setting or Dataset: The American Board of Family Medicine (ABFM) 2017-2021 continuing certification examination registration questionnaire, which is completed by every diplomate during registration for recertification. Population studied: ABFM-certified family physicians. Outcome measures: The primary outcome was self-report of working collaboratively in their primary practice setting with behavioral health clinicians. We examined associations with demographic, practice and geographic characteristics. Results: This survey mechanism achieves a 100% response rate. Among 25,222 responding family physicians in continuity care settings, 38.8% reported working collaboratively with any behavioral health clinician. This trend increased from 34.8% in 2017 to 43.0% in 2021. Those working in an independentlyowned practice had lower odds of working collaboratively with behavioral health clinicians (OR = 0.341) while those working as faculty had higher odds (OR = 2.319). Substantial geographic state-level variation in Vermont with low levels of collaboration in the South. Conclusions: Rates of integration appear to be rising nationally, though significant variation exists, with far less integration reported from family physicians in independent and Southern practices. Inequitable access to mental health services suggests the need for further research to explore reasons for these disparities exist and how best to support further integration, to better support patient health and to improve health outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Explanatory models of sexual aggression were examined among mainland Asian American (n = 222), Hawaiian Asian American (n = 127), and European American men (n = 399). The Malamuth et al. (N. M. Malamuth, D. Linz, C. L. Heavey, G. Barnes, & M. Acker, 1995; N. M. Malamuth, R. i. Sockloskie, M. P. Koss, & I. S. Tanaka, 1991) confluence model of sexual aggression, which posits impersonal sex and hostile masculinity as paths to sexual aggression, was consistently supported. Culture-specific moderators of sexual aggression were also identified. Whereas loss of face was a protective factor against sexual aggression in the Asian American samples, it generally was not a protective factor among European Americans. These findings are not a function of actual or perceived minority status. An implication is that theoretical models may need to be augmented with cultural constructs for optimal application in certain ethnic group contexts. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

While the early effects of the COVID-19 pandemic on the United States labor market are well-established, less is known about the long-term impact of SARS-CoV-2 infection and Long COVID on employment. To address this gap, we analyzed self-reported data from a prospective, national cohort study to estimate the effects of SARS-CoV-2 symptoms at three months post-infection on missed workdays and return to work. The analysis included 2,939 adults in the Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry (INSPIRE) study who tested positive for their initial SARS-CoV-2 infection at the time of enrollment, were employed before the pandemic, and completed a baseline and three-month electronic survey. At three months post-infection, 40.8% of participants reported at least one SARS-CoV-2 symptom and 9.6% of participants reported five or more SARS-CoV-2 symptoms. When asked about missed work due to their SARS-CoV-2 infection at three months, 7.2% of participants reported missing ≥10 workdays and 13.9% of participants reported not returning to work since their infection. At three months, participants with ≥5 symptoms had a higher adjusted odds ratio of missing ≥10 workdays (2.96, 95% CI 1.81–4.83) and not returning to work (2.44, 95% CI 1.58–3.76) compared to those with no symptoms. Prolonged SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were common, affecting 4-in-10 participants at three-months post-infection, and were associated with increased odds of work loss, most pronounced among adults with ≥5 symptoms at three months. Despite the end of the federal Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 and efforts to "return to normal", policymakers must consider the clinical and economic implications of the COVID-19 pandemic on people's employment status and work absenteeism, particularly as data characterizing the numerous health and well-being impacts of Long COVID continue to emerge. Improved understanding of risk factors for lost work time may guide efforts to support people in returning to work. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: In response to the opioid crisis in the United States, population-level prescribing of opioids has been decreasing; there are concerns, however, that dose reductions are related to potential adverse events. Objective: Examine associations between opioid dose reductions and risk of 1-month potential adverse events (emergency department (ED) visits, opioid overdose, benzodiazepine prescription fill, all-cause mortality). Design: This observational cohort study used electronic health record and claims data from eight United States health systems in a prescription opioid registry (Clinical Trials Network-0084). All opioid fills (excluding buprenorphine) between 1/1/2012 and 12/31/2018 were used to identify baseline periods with mean morphine milligram equivalents daily dose of ≥ 50 during six consecutive months. Patients: We identified 60,040 non-cancer patients with ≥ one 2-month dose reduction period (600,234 unique dose reduction periods). Main Measures: Analyses examined associations between dose reduction levels (1– < 15%, 15– < 30%, 30– < 100%, 100% over 2 months) and potential adverse events in the month following a dose reduction using logistic regression analysis, adjusting for patient characteristics. Key Results: Overall, dose reduction periods involved mean reductions of 18.7%. Compared to reductions of 1– < 15%, dose reductions of 30– < 100% were associated with higher odds of ED visits (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.10, 1.17), opioid overdose (OR 1.41, 95% CI 1.09–1.81), and all-cause mortality (OR 1.39, 95% CI 1.16–1.67), but lower odds of a benzodiazepine fill (OR 0.83, 95% CI 0.81–0.85). Dose reductions of 15– < 30%, compared to 1– < 15%, were associated with higher odds of ED visits (OR 1.08, 95% CI 1.05–1.11) and lower odds of a benzodiazepine fill (OR 0.93, 95% CI 0.92–0.95), but were not associated with opioid overdose and all-cause mortality. Conclusions: Larger reductions for patients on opioid therapy may raise risk of potential adverse events in the month after reduction and should be carefully monitored. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Insurance companies and the Centers for Medicaid and Medicare Services are shifting from reimbursing health providers a fixed amount for a service to reimbursement based in part on patients' outcomes. This approach is called value-based care (VBC) and includes a wide range of programs. Although the behavioral health providers that have been impacted by VBC to date are primarily those in larger health systems, use of VBC is expanding as payors seek to combat rising health care costs and increase transparency and accountability for health services. Thus, behavioral health providers need to know about VBC models and their impact as well as steps they can take to be better prepared for this shift. Public Significance Statement: Insurance companies and Medicare/Medicaid are increasingly basing their payment for health care on patients' outcomes. This value-based care approach is new for most behavioral health care providers and therefore requires learning these new systems and preparing for change. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The United States is facing a social isolation and loneliness crisis. In response, the US Surgeon General issued an advisory in May 2023 recommending actions that health care, community programs, and social services can take to collaboratively improve social connection. Primary care has a critical role to play in implementing the Surgeon General's recommendations. We present social isolation and loneliness as medical issues and highlight next steps for the primary care sector to combat this epidemic. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Long-term symptoms following severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are a major concern, yet their prevalence is poorly understood. Methods We conducted a prospective cohort study comparing adults with SARS-CoV-2 infection (coronavirus disease-positive [COVID+]) with adults who tested negative (COVID−), enrolled within 28 days of a Food and Drug Administration (FDA)-approved SARS-CoV-2 test result for active symptoms. Sociodemographic characteristics, symptoms of SARS-CoV-2 infection (assessed with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] Person Under Investigation Symptom List), and symptoms of post-infectious syndromes (ie, fatigue, sleep quality, muscle/joint pains, unrefreshing sleep, and dizziness/fainting, assessed with CDC Short Symptom Screener for myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) were assessed at baseline and 3 months via electronic surveys sent via text or email. Results Among the first 1000 participants, 722 were COVID+ and 278 were COVID−. Mean age was 41.5 (SD 15.2); 66.3% were female, 13.4% were Black, and 15.3% were Hispanic. At baseline, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms were more common in the COVID+ group than the COVID− group. At 3 months, SARS-CoV-2 symptoms declined in both groups, although were more prevalent in the COVID+ group: upper respiratory symptoms/head/eyes/ears/nose/throat (HEENT; 37.3% vs 20.9%), constitutional (28.8% vs 19.4%), musculoskeletal (19.5% vs 14.7%), pulmonary (17.6% vs 12.2%), cardiovascular (10.0% vs 7.2%), and gastrointestinal (8.7% vs 8.3%); only 50.2% and 73.3% reported no symptoms at all. Symptoms of post-infectious syndromes were similarly prevalent among the COVID+ and COVID− groups at 3 months. Conclusions Approximately half of COVID+ participants, as compared with one-quarter of COVID− participants, had at least 1 SARS-CoV-2 symptom at 3 months, highlighting the need for future work to distinguish long COVID. Clinical Trials Registration NCT04610515. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Integrating behavioral health in primary care improves quality of care and outcomes for patients with comorbid conditions. Shortage of a trained behavioral health workforce limits adoption. Professional psychology training programs contribute to recruitment, retention, and development of skilled providers, who value and deliver behavioral health services in primary care. This study interviewed a cohort of established psychology training programs in real-world, state-wide clinical primary care settings and identified their strategies and challenges with teaching practices and program resources that impact the robust quality of training. Method: Between December 2020 and March 2021, we conducted semistructured interviews with 12 licensed psychologists who oversaw nine integrated primary care psychology training programs at the internship and postdoctoral levels across Washington State. Data were analyzed using a thematic approach. Results: Programs taught psychology trainees about integrated primary care via extensive onboarding, modeling and shadowing, structured learning environment, interprofessional education opportunities, flexible and cross-disciplinary supervision, and a psychologically safe space. Teaching challenges included balancing scheduled and curbside supervision, pivoting to telehealth, and aligning trainee expectations and program requirements. Training programs were funded through different and multiple sources, but most lacked a stable funding mechanism, compounded by barriers for psychology trainees to bill for services, a lack of control over organization's budgeting decisions, and instability in funding renewal. Conclusion: Synergistic support from program, organization, and system/policy levels are needed to align teaching activities with clinical practice environments and invest in the growth and sustainability of psychology training programs on integrated primary care. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Aim: There is no gold‐standard and considerable heterogeneity in outcome measures used to evaluate treatments for opioid use disorder (OUD) along the opioid treatment cascade. The aim of this study was to develop the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) opioid use disorder core outcomes set (OUD–COS). Design: Four‐round, e‐Delphi expert panel consensus study and plenary research group discussion and targeted consultation. Setting: United States. Participants: A panel of 25 members including clinical practitioners, clinical researchers and administrative staff from the CTN, the network's affiliated clinical and community sites and the NIDA Centre for the CTN. Measurements From a pool of 24 candidate items in four domains (biomedical/disease status; behaviors, symptoms and functioning; opioid treatment cascade; and morbidity and mortality), the panel completed an on‐line questionnaire to rank items with defined specification on a 9‐point scale for importance, with a standard 70% consensus criterion. Findings After the fourth round of the questionnaire and subsequent discussion, consensus was reached for five outcomes: two patient‐reported (global impression of improvement and incident non‐fatal overdose); one clinician‐reported (illicit/non‐medical drug toxicology); and two from administrative records (duration of treatment and fatal opioid poisoning). Conclusions: An e‐Delphi consensus study has produced the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network opioid use disorder core outcomes set (version 1) for opioid use disorder treatment efficacy and effectiveness research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Primary care has increasingly adopted integrated behavioral health (IBH) practices to enhance overall care. The IBH Cross-Model Framework clarifies the core processes and structures of IBH, but little is known about how practices vary in the implementation of these processes and structures. This study aimed to describe clusters of clinics using the IBH Cross-Model Framework for a large sample of primary care clinics, as well as contextual variables associated with differences in implementation. Primary care clinics (N = 102) in Minnesota reported their level of implementation across 18 different components of IBH via the site self-assessment (SSA). The components were mapped to all five principles and four of the nine structures of the IBH Cross-Model Framework. latent class analysis was used to identify unique clusters of IBH components from the SSA across the IBH Cross-Model Framework's processes and structures. Latent classes were then regressed onto context variables. A four-class model was determined to be the best fit: Low IBH (39.6%), Structural IBH (7.9%), Partial IBH (29.4%), and Strong IBH (23.1%). Partial IBH clinics were more urban than the other three classes, lower in SES risk than Structural IBH clinics, and located in smaller organizations than Strong IBH clinics. There were no differences between classes in race/ethnicity of the clinic area or practice size. Four groups of IBH implementation were identified representing unique profiles of integration. These clusters may represent patterns of community-based implementation of IBH that indicate easier and more challenging aspects of IBH implementation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A lack of consensus on the optimal outcome measures to assess the efficacy and effectiveness of interventions for the treatment of opioid use disorder (OUD) has hampered the pooling of research data for evidence synthesis and clinical guidelines. A core outcome set (COS) is a minimum set of outcome measures that are recommended for all studies of a particular condition. The National Drug Abuse Treatment Clinical Trials Network (CTN) Core Outcome Set for OUD (COS-OUD) is a development study to identify core constructs, meaningful outcomes, and their optimal measurement for all efficacy and effectiveness studies of OUD treatment and service delivery.Methods/design: Overseen by an expert workgroup, a modified, stepwise, e-Delphi methodology will be used to gain consensus among a panel of clinical practitioners and researchers involved in the treatment of OUD, who are members of the CTN. Sequential rounds of anonymous, online questionnaires will be used to identify, rate the importance of, and refine a core outcome set. A consensus threshold will be achieved if at least 70% of the panel rate the measure as critical for inclusion in the COS-OUD. Where consensus is not reached or there are suggestions for new measures, these will be brought forward to a further round of review prior to a consensus meeting. Products from this study will be communicated via peer-reviewed scientific journals and conferences.Discussion: This initiative will develop a COS for OUD intervention trials, treatment studies, and service delivery and will support the pooling of research and clinical practice data and efforts to develop measurement-based care within the OUD treatment cascade.Trial Registration: http://www.comet-initiative.org/Studies/Details/1579. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Most people with alcohol or opioid use disorders (AUD or OUD) are not diagnosed or treated for these conditions in primary care. This study takes a critical step toward quantifying service gaps and directing improvement efforts for AUD and OUD by using electronic health record (EHR) data from diverse primary care organizations to quantify the extent to which AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated in primary care practices.Methods: We extracted and integrated diagnosis, medication, and behavioral health visit data from the EHRs of 21 primary care clinics within four independent healthcare organizations representing community health centers and rural hospital-associated clinics in the Pacific Northwest United States. Rates of documented AUD and OUD diagnoses, pharmacological treatments, and behavioral health visits were evaluated over a two-year period (2015-2016).Results: Out of 47,502 adult primary care patients, 1476 (3.1%) had documented AUD; of these, 115 (7.8%) had orders for AUD medications and 271 (18.4%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Only 402 (0.8%) patients had documented OUD, and of these, 107 (26.6%) received OUD medications and 119 (29.6%) had at least one documented visit with a non-physician behavioral health specialist. Rates of AUD diagnosis and AUD and OUD medications were higher in clinics that had co-located non-physician behavioral health specialists.Conclusions: AUD and OUD are underdiagnosed and undertreated within a sample of independent primary care organizations serving mostly rural patients. Primary care organizations likely need service models, technologies, and workforces, including non-physician behavioral health specialists, to improve capacities to diagnose and treat AUD and OUD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's 2022 Clinical Practice Guideline for Prescribing Opioids for Pain cautioned that inflexible opioid prescription duration limits may harm patients. Information about the relationship between initial opioid prescription duration and a subsequent refill could inform prescribing policies and practices to optimize patient outcomes. We assessed the association between initial opioid duration and an opioid refill prescription. We conducted a retrospective cohort study of adults ≥19 years of age in 10 US health systems between 2013 and 2018 from outpatient care with a diagnosis for back pain without radiculopathy, back pain with radiculopathy, neck pain, joint pain, tendonitis/bursitis, mild musculoskeletal pain, severe musculoskeletal pain, urinary calculus, or headache. Generalized additive models were used to estimate the association between opioid days' supply and a refill prescription. Overall, 220,797 patients were prescribed opioid analgesics upon an outpatient visit for pain. Nearly a quarter (23.5%) of the cohort received an opioid refill prescription during follow-up. The likelihood of a refill generally increased with initial duration for most pain diagnoses. About 1 to 3 fewer patients would receive a refill within 3 months for every 100 patients initially prescribed 3 vs. 7 days of opioids for most pain diagnoses. The lowest likelihood of refill was for a 1-day supply for all pain diagnoses, except for severe musculoskeletal pain (9 days' supply) and headache (3–4 days' supply). Long-term prescription opioid use increased modestly with initial opioid prescription duration for most but not all pain diagnoses examined. • Most patients initially prescribed opioids for acute pain did not receive a refill. • Continued prescription opioid use generally increased with initial opioid duration. • Association of initial opioid days' supply and a refill varied by pain diagnosis. • Flexible prescription opioid duration limits should be considered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patients with chronic pain on opioids frequently experience loneliness, which is associated with poorer health outcomes and higher risk for opioid misuse and opioid use disorder. Given that almost half of opioids are prescribed in primary care, a critical need exists for the development and testing of interventions to reduce loneliness in primary care patients at risk for opioid misuse. Cognitive behavioral therapy and social prescribing have been shown to be efficacious in reducing loneliness and improving outcomes in other populations but have not been tested in patients at risk for substance use disorder. The overall objective of our study is to reduce opioid misuse and opioid use disorder by addressing loneliness in patients on long-term opioid therapy in real-world primary care settings., Methods: We will conduct a 3-arm pragmatic, randomized controlled trial to compare the effectiveness of two group-based, telehealth-delivered interventions with treatment as usual: (1) cognitive behavioral therapy to address maladaptive thought patterns and behaviors around social connection and (2) a social prescribing intervention to connect participants with social opportunities and develop supportive social networks. Our primary outcome is loneliness as measured by the UCLA Loneliness Scale and our dependent secondary outcome is opioid misuse as measured by the Common Opioid Misuse Measure. We will recruit 102 patients on long-term opioid therapy who screen positive for loneliness from 2 health care systems in Washington State. Implementation outcomes will be assessed using the RE-AIM framework., Discussion: Our study is innovative because we are targeting loneliness, an under-addressed but critical social risk factor that may prevent opioid misuse and use disorder in the setting where most patients are receiving their opioid prescriptions for chronic pain. If successful, the project will have a positive impact in reducing loneliness, reducing opioid misuse, improving function and preventing substance use disorder., Trial Registration: NCT06285032, issue date: February 28, 2024, original., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Differences in acute COVID-19 associated morbidity based on race, ethnicity, and gender have been well described; however, less is known about differences in subsequent longer term health-related quality of life and well-being., Methods: This prospective cohort study included symptomatic adults tested for SARS-CoV-2 who completed baseline and 3-month follow-up surveys. Using the PROMIS-29 tool, a validated measure of health and well-being, we compared outcomes at 3 months and change in outcomes from baseline to 3 months among groups with different races, ethnicities, and/or sexes., Results: Among 6044 participants, 4113 (3202 COVID +) were included. Among COVID + participants, compared to non-Hispanic White participants, Black participants had better PROMIS T-scores for cognitive function (3.6 [1.1, 6.2]) and fatigue (- 4.3 [- 6.6, - 2.0]) at 3 months and experienced more improvement in fatigue over 3 months (- 2.7 [- 4.7, - 0.8]). At 3 months, compared with males, females had worse PROMIS T-scores for cognitive function (- 4.1 [- 5.6, - 2.6]), physical function (- 2.1 [- 3.1, - 1.0]), social participation (- 2.8 [- 4.2, - 1.5]), anxiety (2.8 [1.5, 4.1]), fatigue (5.1 [3.7, 6.4]), and pain interference (2.0 [0.9, 3.2]). Females experienced less improvement in fatigue over 3 months (3.1 [2.0, 4.3]). Transgender/non-binary/other gender participants had worse 3-month scores in all domains except for sleep disturbance and pain interference., Conclusions: Three months after the initial COVID-19 infection, Black participants reported better cognitive function and fatigue, while females and other gender minoritized groups experienced lower well-being. Future studies are necessary to better understand how and why social constructs, specifically race, ethnicity, and gender, influence differences in COVID-19-related health outcomes. Trials Registration ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04610515., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Importance: Chronic symptoms reported following an infection with SARS-CoV-2, such as cognitive problems, overlap with symptoms included in the definition of myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS)., Objective: To evaluate the prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness subsequent to acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, changes in ME/CFS symptoms through 12 months of follow-up, and the association of ME/CFS symptoms with SARS-CoV-2 test results at the acute infection-like index illness., Design, Setting, and Participants: This prospective, multisite, longitudinal cohort study (Innovative Support for Patients with SARS-CoV-2 Infections Registry [INSPIRE]) enrolled participants from December 11, 2020, to August 29, 2022. Participants were adults aged 18 to 64 years with acute symptoms suggestive of SARS-CoV-2 infection who received a US Food and Drug Administration-approved SARS-CoV-2 test at the time of illness and did not die or withdraw from the study by 3 months. Follow-up surveys were collected through February 28, 2023., Exposure: COVID-19 status (positive vs negative) at enrollment., Main Outcome and Measures: The main outcome was the weighted proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness based on the 2015 Institute of Medicine clinical case definition using self-reported symptoms., Results: A total of 4378 participants were included in the study. Most were female (3226 [68.1%]). Mean (SD) age was 37.8 (11.8) years. The survey completion rates ranged from 38.7% (3613 of 4738 participants) to 76.3% (1835 of 4738) and decreased over time. The weighted proportion of participants identified with ME/CFS-like illness did not change significantly at 3 through 12 months of follow-up and was similar in the COVID-19-positive (range, 2.8%-3.7%) and COVID-19-negative (range, 3.1%-4.5%) groups. Adjusted analyses revealed no significant difference in the odds of ME/CFS-like illness at any time point between COVID-19-positive and COVID-19-negative individuals (marginal odds ratio range, 0.84 [95% CI, 0.42-1.67] to 1.18 [95% CI, 0.55-2.51])., Conclusions and Relevance: In this prospective cohort study, there was no evidence that the proportion of participants with ME/CFS-like illness differed between those infected with SARS-CoV-2 vs those without SARS-CoV-2 infection up to 12 months after infection. A 3% to 4% prevalence of ME/CFS-like illness after an acute infection-like index illness would impose a high societal burden given the millions of persons infected with SARS-CoV-2.