ArticleOccupational medicine (Oxford, England)2025
Long COVID in healthcare workers: longitudinal mixed-methods study.
Article in Occupational medicine (Oxford, England), 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Patients seeking occupational health advice before and after COVID-19.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2026Article
- Long COVID and Its Impact on Healthcare Worker's Job Performance: A Qualitative Study in Spain.Journal of occupational and environmental medicine · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundHealthcare workers (HCWs) report higher rates of long coronavirus disease (COVID) (LC) than other occupational groups. It is still unclear whether LC is a lifelong condition. Workforce shortfalls are apparent due to sick leave, reduced hours and lower productivity.
aimsTo investigate the lived experience of LC on a range of HCWs, including impact on health-related quality-of-life (HRQL), use of health services, working and personal lives and household finances.
methodsLongitudinal mixed methods with online surveys and qualitative interviews 6-months apart. HCWs including healthcare professionals, ancillary and administration staff who self-report LC were recruited through social media and National Health Service channels. Interviewees were purposively sampled from survey responses.
resultsThe first survey was completed by 471 HCWs (S1) and 302 (64%) the follow-up (S2). A total of 50 HCWs were interviewed initially and 44 at second interview. All participants experienced various relapsing, remitting, changing and prolonged LC symptoms (mean 7.1 [SD 4.8] at S2) and a third reported day-to-day activities 'limited a lot'. Most participants were working in a reduced capacity: reduced hours, different role or location. Healthcare was limited, and often unsatisfactory. Participants feared reinfection, their future, ability to work and financial security (59% (n = 174) at S2). They experienced stigma, distress, grief for their former self and some felt unsupported, however, as awareness of LC grew some experienced improved understanding and support.
conclusionsMost participants continued working, managing complex and dynamic symptoms effecting their everyday life and ability to work. Most did not report significant improvements over time and feared for their future and financial security.
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.