ArticleBMJ open2022
Support after COVID-19 study: a mixed-methods cross-sectional study to develop recommendations for practice.
Article in BMJ open, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patient Experiences Navigating Care Coordination For Long COVID: A Qualitative Study.Journal of general internal medicine · 2024Article
- An exploration of the experiences and self-generated strategies used when navigating everyday life with Long Covid.BMC public health · 2024Article
- "There is no one who helps you with it": experiences of people with long COVID regarding medical care, therapeutic measures, and barriers in the German healthcare system: results of a qualitative study with four focus groups.BMC health services research · 2023Article
- Prevalence of Long-term Symptoms Varies When Using Different Post-COVID-19 Definitions in Positively and Negatively Tested Adults: The PRIME Post-COVID Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2023Article
- High proportions of post-exertional malaise and orthostatic intolerance in people living with post-COVID-19 condition: the PRIME post-COVID study.Frontiers in medicine · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Objectives of study stage 1 were to: explore people's experiences of illness due to COVID-19 while feeling socially isolated or socially isolating; identify perceptions of what would support recovery; and synthesise insights into recommendations for supporting people after COVID-19. Study stage 2 objectives were to engage stakeholders in evaluating these recommendations and analyse likely influences on access to the support identified.
designA two-stage, multimethod cross-sectional study was conducted from a postpositivist perspective. Stage 1 included an international online survey of people's experiences of illness, particularly COVID-19, in isolation (n=675 full responses). Stage 2 involved a further online survey (n=43), two tweetchats treated as large online focus groups (n=60 and n=27 people tweeting), two smaller focus groups (both n=4) and one interview (both using MS teams).
settingStage 1 had an international emphasis, although 87% of respondents were living in the UK. Stage 2 focused on the UK.
participantsAnyone aged 18+ and able to complete a survey in English could participate. Stage 2 included health professionals, advocates and people with lived experience.
main outcome measuresDescriptive data and response categories derived from open responses to the survey and the qualitative data.
resultsOf those responding fully to stage 1 (mean age 44 years); 130 (19%) had experienced COVID-19 in isolation; 45 had recovered, taking a mean of 5.3 (range 1-54) weeks. 85 did not feel they had recovered; fatigue and varied 'other' symptoms were most prevalent and also had most substantial negative impacts. Our draft recommendations were highly supported by respondents to stage 2 and refined to produce final recommendations.
conclusionsRecommendations support access to progressive intensity and specialism of support, addressing access barriers that might inadvertently increase health inequalities. Multidisciplinary collaboration and learning are crucial, including the person with COVID-19 and/or Long Covid in the planning and decision making throughout.
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.