Assessing the Acceptability of a Co-Produced Long COVID Intervention in an Underserved Community in the UK

Long Covid: conceptualizing the challenges for public health

BACKGROUND

Long Covid has caused significant disruption to public services, economies and population health worldwide, but no single public health approach has proven effective in its management. This essay was the winning entry for the Faculty of Public Health's Sir John Brotherston Prize 2022.

METHODS

In this essay, I synthesize existing literature on public health policy in long Covid, and discuss the challenges and opportunities posed by long Covid for the public health profession. The utility of specialist clinics and community care, in the UK and internationally, is examined, as well as key outstanding issues relating to evidence generation, health inequality and defining long Covid. I then use this information to inform a simple conceptual model.

RESULTS

The generated conceptual model integrates community- and population-level interventions; key areas of identified policy need at both levels include ensuring equitable access to long Covid care, developing screening programmes for high-risk populations, co-production of research and clinical services with patients, and using interventions to generate evidence.

CONCLUSIONS

Significant challenges remain in the management of long Covid from a public health policy perspective. Multidisciplinary community-level and population-level interventions should be employed with a view to achieving an equitable and scalable model of care.

Interventions to support mental health in people with long COVID: a scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Long COVID (LC) is a multisystem disease with symptoms lasting weeks or months beyond the acute COVID-19 infection. Several manifestations are reported by people with LC, including effects on mental health, with varying degrees of psychological distress and disturbances to daily activities. Research conducted to identify effective interventions to support mental health among people with LC has been limited by the breadth and scope of studies.

AIM

This review aims to identify interventions being tested to support mental health of people with LC.

METHODS

A scoping review was conducted by searching five databases for articles published between January 2020 and early October 2022 to identify research evaluating interventions focused on improving mental health symptoms associated with LC. Results from all sources were checked for eligibility by two reviewers, and agreements were resolved by discussion. Gray literature and reference list of included studies and relevant reviews were scrutinised to identify any additional studies. Data extraction was conducted by one reviewer and checked by another reviewer for accuracy.

RESULTS

Of the 940 studies identified, 17 were included, the design of which varied but included mainly case studies (n = 6) and clinical trials (n = 5). Several interventions were described, ranging from single interventions (e.g., pharmacologic) to more holistic, comprehensive suites of services (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic). Several mental health outcomes were measured, mostly anxiety and depression. All included studies were reported to be associated with improvements in participants' mental health outcomes.

CONCLUSION

This scoping review identified studies reporting on a variety of interventions to support mental health among people with LC. Although positive changes were reported by all studies, some were case studies and thus their findings must be interpreted with caution. There is a need for more research to be conducted to identify the impact of interventions on mental health of people with LC.

Digital Interventions for Treating Post-COVID or Long-COVID Symptoms: Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

Patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms need support, and health care professionals need to be able to provide evidence-based patient care. Digital interventions can meet these requirements, especially if personal contact is limited.

OBJECTIVE

We reviewed evidence-based digital interventions that are currently available to help manage physical and mental health in patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms.

METHODS

A scoping review was carried out summarizing novel digital health interventions for treating post-COVID/long-COVID patients. Using the PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome) scheme, original studies were summarized, in which patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms used digital interventions to help aid recovery.

RESULTS

From all scanned articles, 8 original studies matched the inclusion criteria. Of the 8 studies, 3 were "pretest" studies, 3 described the implementation of a telerehabilitation program, 1 was a post-COVID/long-COVID program, and 1 described the results of qualitative interviews with patients who used an online peer-support group. Following the PICO scheme, we summarized previous studies. Studies varied in terms of participants (P), ranging from adults in different countries, such as former hospitalized patients with COVID-19, to individuals in disadvantaged communities in the United Kingdom, as well as health care workers. In addition, the studies included patients who had previously been infected with COVID-19 and who had ongoing symptoms. Some studies focused on individuals with specific symptoms, including those with either post-COVID-19 or long-term symptoms, while other studies included patients based on participation in online peer-support groups. The interventions (I) also varied. Most interventions used a combination of psychological and physical exercises, but they varied in duration, frequency, and social dimensions. The reviewed studies investigated the physical and mental health conditions of patients with post-COVID/long-COVID symptoms. Most studies had no control (C) group, and most studies reported outcomes (O) or improvements in physiological health perception, some physical conditions, fatigue, and some psychological aspects such as depression. However, some studies found no improvements in bowel or bladder problems, concentration, short-term memory, unpleasant dreams, physical ailments, perceived bodily pain, emotional ailments, and perceived mental health.

CONCLUSIONS

More systematic research with larger sample sizes is required to overcome sampling bias and include health care professionals' perspectives, as well as help patients mobilize support from health care professionals and social network partners. The evidence so far suggests that patients should be provided with digital interventions to manage symptoms and reintegrate into everyday life, including work.

'I don't know what to do or where to go'. Experiences of accessing healthcare support from the perspectives of people living with Long Covid and healthcare professionals: A qualitative study in Bradford, UK

BACKGROUND

In October 2022, it was estimated 2.3 million people in the United Kingdom have self-reported Long Covid (LC). Many people have reported not receiving adequate healthcare support. There is a lack of research which provides an in-depth exploration of the barriers faced by people with LC in accessing healthcare support. It is important to understand these barriers to provide better support, care and advice for those experiencing LC.

OBJECTIVE

To understand the barriers faced in accessing primary, secondary and specialist healthcare support for people with LC.

DESIGN AND PARTICIPATION

40 interviews were conducted with people living with LC in Bradford alongside 12 interviews with healthcare professionals (HCPs) providing LC support in Bradford healthcare settings. Interviews were analysed using reflexive thematic analysis.

RESULTS

People living with LC had a large degree of difficulty in accessing healthcare services for LC support. We categorized the healthcare access experiences of participants into five main types: (1) being unable to access primary care, (2) accessing primary care but receiving (perceived) inadequate support, (3) extreme persistence, (4) alternatives to mainstream health care and (5) positive experiences. There was a severe lack of access to specialist LC services. Ethnic minority participants faced a further barrier of mistrust and fear of services deterring them from accessing support. HCPs discussed systemic barriers to delivering services. Experiences were embedded in macrostructural issues further exacerbated by the pandemic.

CONCLUSION

To better support people with LC, the barriers faced in accessing healthcare support must be addressed. Of significance, improvements to general practitioner access are required; especially as GPs are the first line of support for people living with LC.

PATIENT AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

A patient and public involvement group is engaged at regular intervals in the project.

Models of Support for Caregivers and Patients with the Post-COVID-19 Condition: A Scoping Review

BACKGROUND

In December 2019, an outbreak of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), occurred in the city of Wuhan, China. On 30 January 2020, the World Health Organization declared the outbreak a public health emergency of international concern. In October 2021, with the advancement of the disease, the World Health Organization defined the post-COVID-19 condition. The post-COVID-19 condition occurs in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed infection with SARS-CoV-2, usually 3 months after the onset of the disease. The chronicity of COVID-19 has increased the importance of recognizing caregivers and their needs.

METHODS

We conducted a scoping review following international guidelines to map the models of support for caregivers and patients with the post-COVID-19 condition. The searches were conducted in electronic databases and the grey literature. The Population, Concept, and Context framework was used: Population: patients with the post-COVID-19 condition and caregivers; Concept: models of caregiver and patient support; and Context: post-COVID-19 condition. A total of 3258 records were identified through the electronic search, and 20 articles were included in the final sample.

RESULTS

The studies approached existing guidelines and health policies for post-COVID-19 condition patients and support services for patients and home caregivers such as telerehabilitation, multidisciplinary care, hybrid models of care, and follow-up services. Only one study specifically addressed the home caregivers of patients with this clinical condition.

CONCLUSIONS

The review indicates that strategies such as telerehabilitation are effective for training and monitoring the patient-family dyad, but the conditions of access and digital literacy must be considered.

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS (LOCOMOTION): protocol for a mixed-methods study in the UK

INTRODUCTION

Long COVID, a new condition whose origins and natural history are not yet fully established, currently affects 1.5 million people in the UK. Most do not have access to specialist long COVID services. We seek to optimise long COVID care both within and outside specialist clinics, including improving access, reducing inequalities, helping self-management and providing guidance and decision support for primary care. We aim to establish a 'gold standard' of care by systematically analysing current practices, iteratively improving pathways and systems of care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

This mixed-methods, multisite study is informed by the principles of applied health services research, quality improvement, co-design, outcome measurement and learning health systems. It was developed in close partnership with patients (whose stated priorities are prompt clinical assessment; evidence-based advice and treatment and help with returning to work and other roles) and with front-line clinicians. Workstreams and tasks to optimise assessment, treatment and monitoring are based in three contrasting settings: workstream 1 (qualitative research, up to 100 participants), specialist management in 10 long COVID clinics across the UK, via a quality improvement collaborative, experience-based co-design and targeted efforts to reduce inequalities of access, return to work and peer support; workstream 2 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), patient self-management at home, technology-supported monitoring and validation of condition-specific outcome measures and workstream 3 (quantitative research, up to 5000 participants), generalist management in primary care, harnessing electronic record data to study population phenotypes and develop evidence-based decision support, referral pathways and analysis of costs. Study governance includes an active patient advisory group.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

LOng COvid Multidisciplinary consortium Optimising Treatments and servIces acrOss the NHS study is sponsored by the University of Leeds and approved by Yorkshire & The Humber-Bradford Leeds Research Ethics Committee (ref: 21/YH/0276). Participants will provide informed consent. Dissemination plans include academic and lay publications, and partnerships with national and regional policymakers.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT05057260, ISRCTN15022307.

Towards an Understanding of Population Health Data in a Single NHS Trust during COVID-19

The objective of this study was to determine the further care needs of people discharged from the hospital following a COVID-19 illness from April–September 2020. Methods: In partnership with an NHS trust in the UK, data analysis was undertaken by linking data from the Trust, to facilitated a triage process. The intention was to provide information in a format that enabled an examination of the population data and highlight any inequality in provision. Data were mapped onto the indices of multiple deprivation, and a range of text and graphical methods were used to represent the population data to the hospital leadership. The visual representation of the demographics and deprivation of people discharged during a critical period of the pandemic was intended to support planning for community services. The results demonstrated that just under half of those discharged were from the poorest fifth of the English population and that just under half were aged 75 or older. This reflected the disproportional effect of COVID-19 on those who were poorer, older or had pre-existing multiple morbidities. Referral to community or outpatient services was informed by the analysis, and further understanding of the diversity of the population health was established in the Trust. Conclusion: By identifying the population and mapping to the IMD, it was possible to show that over half of discharged patients were from deprived communities, and there was significant organisational learning bout using data to identify inequalities.. The challenge of planning services that target underserved communities remains an important issue following the pandemic, and lessons learnt from one health system are being shared.