Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40128775›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2025

An international comparison of longitudinal health data collected on long COVID in nine high income countries: a qualitative data analysis.

Josephine Exley, Edmund Stubbs, Raphael Wittenberg, Nicholas Mays

Abstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Josephine ExleyNIHR Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit (PIRU), Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6501-0854
Edmund StubbsNIHR Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit (PIRU), Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1464-8361
Raphael WittenbergNIHR Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit (PIRU), Care Policy and Evaluation Centre, London School of Economics and Political Science, London, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3096-2721
Nicholas MaysNIHR Policy Innovation and Evaluation Research Unit (PIRU), Department of Health Services Research and Policy, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK. nicholas.mays@lshtm.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9808-8466

Funding

National Institute for Health and Care Research PR-PRU-1217-20602
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLong coronavirus disease (COVID) presents a significant health challenge. Long-term monitoring is critical to support understanding of the condition, service planning and evaluation. We sought to identify and examine longitudinal health data collected on long COVID to inform potential decisions in England regarding the rationale for data collection, the data collected, the sources from which data were collected and the methods used for collection.

methodsWe included datasets in high-income countries that experienced similar coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) waves to England pre-vaccine rollout. Relevant datasets were identified through literature searches, the authors' networks and participants' recommendations. We undertook semi-structured interviews with individuals involved in the development and running of the datasets. We held a focus group discussion with representatives of three long COVID patient organisations to capture the perspective of those with long COVID. Emergent findings were tested in a workshop with country interviewees.

resultsWe analysed 17 datasets from nine countries (Belgium, Canada, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom). Datasets sampled different populations, used different data collection tools and measured different outcomes, reflecting different priorities. Most data collection was research (rather than health care system)-funded and time-limited. For datasets linked to specialist services, there was uncertainty surrounding how long these would continue. Definitions of long COVID varied. Patient representatives' favoured self-identification, given challenges in accessing care and receiving a diagnosis; New Zealand's long COVID registry was the only example identified using this approach. Post-exertion malaise, identified by patients as a critical outcome, was absent from all datasets. The lack of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) was highlighted as a limitation of datasets reliant on routine health data, although some had developed mechanisms to extend data collection using patient surveys.

conclusionsAddressing research questions related to the management of long COVID requires diverse data sources that capture different populations with long COVID over the long-term. No country examined has developed a comprehensive long-term data system for long COVID, and, in many settings, data collection is ending leaving a gap. There is no obvious model for England or other countries to follow, assuming there remains sufficient policy interest in establishing a long-term long COVID patient registry.

Indexed as

COVID-19Data CollectionDeveloped CountriesHumansLongitudinal StudiesPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeQualitative ResearchSARS-CoV-2Health monitoring systemsHealth registriesHealth research data and infrastructureLong COVIDLongitudinal health dataPost COVID-19 syndrome

Identifiers

PMID40128775
PMCPMC11931811

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.