Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41062137›Full record

SynthesisBMJ open2025

Return to work with long COVID: a rapid review of support and challenges.

Sarah Daniels, Hua Wei, Damien M McElvenny, Martie van Tongeren, Donna Bramwell, Anna Coleman, Davine Forde, Ruth Wiggans

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis 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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Long COVID and work in the UK: challenges, support and perspectives.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2025
    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

8 authors.

Sarah DanielsDivision of Population Health, Health Sciences Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK sarah.daniels@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6308-9493
Hua WeiDivision of Population Health, Health Sciences Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2617-7632
Damien M McElvennyDivision of Population Health, Health Sciences Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Martie van TongerenDivision of Population Health, Health Sciences Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-1205-1898
Donna BramwellDivision of Population Health, Health Sciences Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-6147-6932
Anna ColemanDivision of Population Health, Health Sciences Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.
Davine FordeNational Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Manchester Biomedical Research Centre, Manchester, UK.
Ruth WiggansDivision of Population Health, Health Sciences Research and Primary Care, The University of Manchester, Manchester, UK.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesTo explore existing evidence for the provision of support for return to work (RTW) in long COVID (LC) patients and the barriers and facilitators to taking up this support.

designA rapid review reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The study was preregistered in PROSPERO (ID: CRD42023478126). DATA SOURCES: Searches were completed in June 2024 across major databases including MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, evidence-based medicine reviews, Web of Science and Google Scholar. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Included studies focused on people with LC (PwLC) symptoms lasting over 12 weeks and addressed either: (1) non-workplace- or workplace-based support for RTW and/or (2) barriers and facilitators to RTW in this population. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: A quality assessment was conducted using the JBI Systematic Reviews critical appraisal tool. The data were summarised in tabular format and a narrative synthesis.

resultsTwenty-five studies were included. While many studies demonstrated rigorous methodologies and low risk of bias levels, some had high and medium risk levels. Non-workplace-based support was mostly measured quantitatively and included interdisciplinary healthcare programmes, clinical interventions and rehabilitation programmes focusing on pacing and breathing strategies. Compensation and insurance schemes were important funders of these interventions.Workplace-based support was mostly measured qualitatively. Barriers to the provision of support at organisational level included lack of understanding of LC symptoms, insufficient workplace guidance and educational gaps among managers. Individual barriers included threat of income loss, remote working and disconnection from the workplace. Facilitators for support included recognition and validation of LC and its symptoms, and eligibility for disability benefits associated with work.

conclusionsRTW is an important outcome of health-related absence and should be systematically recorded in studies of PwLC. The heterogeneity and unpredictability of LC symptoms create challenges for supporting working age populations. Further research is crucial to better understand the specific RTW needs for PwLC and address potential barriers and facilitators to workplace-based support, particularly through interventions, organisational practices and employ-led policies that enable sustained RTW. Consistent guidelines on LC's definition and disability status may facilitate the provision of support and the development of interventions. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42023478126.

Indexed as

Post-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeReturn to WorkHumansWorkplaceEmploymentLong COVIDOccupational healthReturn to workWorkplace support

Identifiers

PMID41062137
PMCPMC12506103

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.