Trial reportBMJ open2025
Qualitative evaluation of the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After COVID-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) randomised controlled trial (RCT): 'you are not alone'.
Trial report in BMJ open, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Patient and Professional Perspectives on Long COVID: A Systematic Literature Review and Meta-Synthesis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Pooled it
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
11 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThis qualitative evaluation was embedded in the Rehabilitation Exercise and psycholoGical support After COVID-19 InfectioN (REGAIN) study, a randomised controlled trial (RCT) for those with post-COVID-19 condition ('long COVID') after hospital admission for COVID-19, comparing weekly home-based, live online supervised group exercise and psychological support sessions with 'best practice usual care' (a single session of advice).
objectiveTo increase our understanding of how and why the REGAIN programme might have worked and what helped or hindered this intervention.
designA qualitative evaluation which utilised interviews with participants and practitioners delivering the intervention. Framework and thematic analysis were used to analyse the findings.
settingEngland and Wales, UK.
participantsAdults discharged from National Health Service (NHS) hospitals at least 3 months previously after COVID-19, with ongoing physical and/or mental health sequelae.
resultsTwenty intervention participants, 20 control participants and five practitioners were interviewed.The themes from the group support sessions were: (1) you are not alone; (2) sharing experiences and addressing worries; (3) gaining new perspectives; (4) hope for progression; (5) peer support and bonding; (6) integration of facilitation skills; (7) modified activity pacing and goal setting, and (8) giving participants structure. The themes from group exercise were: (1) monitoring and modification of the online exercise; (2) catering for differing abilities; (3) feeling safe and confident to exercise; (4) progression of fitness; (5) optimal timing in the recovery trajectory; (6) group effect; (7) initial apprehension about exercise group; (8) gauging exercise capabilities; (9) translating exercises into life; and (10) on-demand supplementary videos. The 1:1 consultation sessions revealed patients needed to tell their stories.
conclusionBeing listened to and being understood by someone 'who got it' was very important to people with post-COVID-19 condition. The group sessions of both exercise and psychological support were valued by participants, working together, and learning from each other in the face of a new disease within a global pandemic.
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.