Observational studyJMIR formative research2026
Wearable- and Mobile App-Based Activity Pacing and Fatigue Management in Post-COVID-19 Condition: Exploratory Observational Study.
Observational study in JMIR formative research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPost-COVID-19 fatigue affects millions worldwide; yet, evidence-based management strategies remain limited. Activity pacing, regulating activity to match available energy and minimize symptom exacerbation, may support symptom management, although optimal pacing approaches remain unclear.
objectiveThis study aimed to explore associations between activity pacing strategies delivered through a mobile app and daily fatigue levels in individuals with post-COVID-19 fatigue.
methodsIn this exploratory observational study, 19 adults with post-COVID-19 fatigue used wearable devices (Fitbit Inspire 3) for objective activity monitoring and a mobile app (FatigueSense) to self-report daily symptoms (fatigue and energy levels) and optionally select activity pacing goals (light, balanced, or active) over a period of 3 months. We examined associations between pacing strategies and symptom outcomes by using mixed-effects linear models with random intercepts. Same-day outcomes (fatigue and energy reported on the day of goal selection) were analyzed controlling for age and sex. Next-day outcomes (fatigue and energy reported the day following goal selection) were analyzed controlling for age, sex, and prior-day symptoms.
resultsAcross 2182 observation days, participants self-selected pacing goals on 816 (37.4%) days, demonstrating symptom-responsive behavior with higher baseline fatigue on pacing days (mean score 1.74, SD 0.59 vs 1.58, SD 0.54 on nonpacing days on a 0-3 scale where 0="none" and 3="severe"; P=.004). On pacing days (584/816, 71.6% with complete data from 18 participants), active pacing was associated with reduced same-day fatigue (β=-0.34, 95% CI -0.49 to -0.19; P<.001) and increased same-day energy (β=8.8, 95% CI 4.7-12.9; P<.001) compared to light pacing. Balanced pacing also showed significant reductions in fatigue (β=-0.15; P=.008) and increases in energy (β=5.8; P<.001) compared to light pacing. Next-day effects were attenuated and nonsignificant (fatigue: β=-0.05, P=.53; energy: β=1.1, P=.61). Individual heterogeneity was substantial, with an intraclass correlation coefficient of 0.32, indicating that 32% of the variance was attributable to between-person differences. Among participants trying multiple strategies, 58.3% (7/12) showed meaningful responses (≥0.3-point fatigue reduction) to structured pacing strategies.
conclusionsStructured activity pacing strategies (active and balanced) were associated with improved same-day symptom management in individuals with post-COVID-19 fatigue. However, substantial confounding by indication (self-selection of pacing based on symptom state) and individual heterogeneity limit causal interpretation. These exploratory findings warrant testing in randomized controlled trials to establish efficacy and identify responder characteristics.
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.