Abstract
Previous research has categorised symptoms of COVID-19 / Long COVID into 12 thematic areas including: fever, myalgia, fatigue, impaired cognitive function, and that COVID-19 survivors had reduced levels of physical function, activities of daily living, and health-related quality of life. Our aim was to review the evidence for interventions or best practice to support people with Long COVID, or similar post-viral conditions characterised by fatigue, to return to normal activities.
Evidence was included from guidelines, systematic reviews (SR), and primary studies. The primary studies focussed on Long COVID (LC) indicated that there should be a needs-based focus to care for those with LC. Consideration should be given to individuals living with LC in the same way as people with disabilities are accommodated in terms of workplace adjustment. Two SRs indicated that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for patients with LC or chronic fatigue syndrome could help improve function for activities of daily life. However, the third, most recent SR, concluded that there is a lack of robust evidence for NPIs. LC fatigue management methods may be beneficial under certain conditions. One SR reported work capability as an outcome however they did not find any studies which evaluated the impact of interventions on return to work/ normal life. One primary study, on individuals with CFS, described a written self-management programme. Following this intervention there was an 18% increase in the number of patients in employment.
Policy and practice implications: Long COVID is still being established as a post-viral condition with many symptoms. Patient-centred treatment options such as occupational therapy, self-management therapy and talking therapy may be considered in the same way as for other debilitating conditions. Return-to-work accommodations are needed for all workers unable to return to full-time employment. Due to the nature of the studies included, there was little reported evidence of effectiveness of getting individuals back into their normal activities.
Funding statement The Bangor Institute for Health and Medical Research was funded for this work by the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health & Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government.
Review conducted by Bangor Institute for Health and Medical Research (BIHMR), Bangor University.
Review Team
▪ Dr Llinos Haf Spencer, l.spencer{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Dr Annie Hendry, a.hendry{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Mr Abraham Makanjuola, a.makanjuola{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Ms Bethany Fern Anthony, b.anthony{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Mr Jacob Davies, jacob.davies{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Ms Kalpa Pisavadia, kalpa.pisavadia{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Professor Dyfrig Hughes, d.a.hughes{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Professor Deb Fitzsimmons, d.fitzsimmons{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Professor Clare Wilkinson, c.wilkinson{at}bangor.ac.uk
▪ Professor Rhiannon Tudor Edwards, r.t.edwards{at}bangor.ac.uk
Review submitted to the WCEC on 11 January 2023
Stakeholder consultation meeting 8th November 2022
Rapid Review report issued by the WCEC in January 2022
WCEC Team Adrian Edwards, Ruth Lewis, Alison Cooper and Micaela Gal involved in drafting the Topline Summary and editing.
This review should be cited as RR00042_ Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre
Disclaimer The views expressed in this publication are those of the authors, not necessarily Health and Care Research Wales. The WCEC and authors of this work declare that they have no conflict of interest.
What is a Rapid Review?Our rapid reviews (RR) use a variation of the systematic review (SR) approach, abbreviating or omitting some components to generate the evidence to inform stakeholders promptly whilst maintaining attention to bias. They follow the methodological recommendations and minimum standards for conducting and reporting RR, including a structured protocol, systematic search, screening, data extraction, critical appraisal, and evidence synthesis to answer a specific question and identify key research gaps. They take 1 to 2 months, depending on the breadth and complexity of the research topic/question(s), extent of the evidence base, and type of analysis required for synthesis.
Who is this summary for?Policymakers in Welsh Government to plan and deliver services for individuals with Long COVID as they re-enter training, education, employment, and informal caring responsibilities.
Background / Aim of Rapid Review Previous research has categorised symptoms of COVID-19/Long COVID into 12 thematic areas including: fever, myalgia, fatigue, impaired cognitive function, and that COVID-19 survivors had reduced levels of physical function, activities of daily living, and health-related quality of life (Amdal et al., 2021; de Oliveira Almeida et al., 2022). NICE guidelines highlight the impact of the condition on quality of life and the challenge of determining best practice based on the current evidence (National Institute for Health and Care Excellence et al., 2022). Treatments for other post-viral syndromes may also apply to people living with Long COVID (Wong and Weitzer, 2021). Our aim was to review the evidence for interventions or best practice to support people with Long COVID, or similar post-viral conditions characterised by fatigue, to return to normal activities (including return to the workforce, education, childcare, or housework).
Key Findings Evidence was included from guidelines (n=3), systematic reviews (SRs) (n=3), and primary studies (n=4).
Extent of the evidence base
▪ Two SRs included non-pharmacological interventions for Long COVID or post-viral syndromes, including Long COVID (Chandan et al., 2022; Fowler-Davis et al., 2021). The remaining SR focused on interventions for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS).
▪ The four primary studies were conducted in the UK, USA, Norway, and Turkey. The SRs included studies from across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australasia.
▪ Included SRs and primary studies evaluated non-pharmaceutical interventions, including fatigue management, exercise therapy, Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), workplace support, self-management, sleep therapy, music therapy, and counselling.
▪ Two relevant guidelines were identified for Long COVID and one for ME/CFS. The Long COVID guideline was aimed at employers, and the ME/CFS guideline was aimed at service providers and users.
Recency of the evidence base
▪ Included papers were from 2014 to 2022.
Evidence of effectiveness
▪ The primary studies focussed on Long COVID indicated that there should be a needs-based focus to care for those with Long COVID (Lunt et al., 2022; Skilbeck, 2022; Wong et al., 2022). Consideration should be given to individuals living with Long COVID in the same way as people with disabilities are accommodated in terms of workplace adjustment (e.g. part-time hours, working from home, or hybrid working).
▪ Two SRs indicated that non-pharmaceutical interventions for patients with Long COVID or CFS could help improve function for activities of daily life (Fowler-Davis et al., 2021; Larun et al., 2019). However, the third and most recent SR concluded that there is a lack of robust evidence for non-pharmaceutical interventions (Chandan et al., 2022).
▪ Long COVID fatigue management by exercise therapy, electrical nerve stimulation, sleep and touch therapy, and behavioural self-management may be beneficial when: physical and psychological support is delivered in groups, people can plan their functional response to fatigue, strengthening rather than endurance is used to prevent deconditioning, fatigue is regarded in the context of an individual’s lifestyle and home-based activities are used (Fowler-Davis et al 2021).
▪ One SR (Chandan et al 2022) reported work capability as an outcome however they did not find any studies which evaluated the impact of interventions on return to work/ normal life.
▪ One primary study concentrated on individuals with CFS (Nyland et al., 2014). Nyland et al. (2014) described a written self-management programme featuring active coping (with CFS) strategies for daily life. Following this intervention, there was an 18% increase in the number of patients in employment (from baseline to follow-up) (Nyland et al., 2014).
Best quality evidence
▪ The three SRs (Chandan et al., 2022; Fowler-Davis et al., 2021; Larun et al., 2019) were of high quality, as was one of the cohort studies (Lunt et al., 2022).
Policy Implications
▪ Long COVID is still being established as a post-viral condition with many symptoms. The Welsh Government may seek to consider patient-centred treatment options such as occupational therapy, self-management therapy and talking therapy (such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy) in the same way as for other debilitating conditions including ME/CFS.
▪ Return-to-work accommodations are needed for all workers unable to return to full-time employment.
▪ Due to the nature of the studies included, there was little reported evidence of effectiveness of getting individuals back into their normal activities.
Strength of Evidence Confidence in the findings is low. Only four primary studies reported outcomes relating to work capacity and return to normal activities such as childcare and housework.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
The Bangor Institute for Health and Medical Research was funded for this work by the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre, itself funded by Health & Care Research Wales on behalf of Welsh Government.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced in the present study are available upon reasonable request to the authors
Abbreviations
- CBT
- Cognitive Behavioural Therapy
- CFS
- Chronic Fatigue Syndrome
- CIPD
- Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development
- COVID-19
- Coronavirus disease 19
- FDA
- Food and Drug Administration
- GET
- Graded Exercise Therapy
- GP
- General Practitioner
- ME
- Myalgic encephalomyelitis
- NHS
- National Health Service
- NICE
- The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence
- OECD
- Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development
- PRISMA
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
- Qfever
- Q fever is a disease caused by the bacteria Coxiella burnetii. The “Q” comes from “Query” fever, the name of the disease until its true cause was discovered in the 1930s.
- RCT
- Randomised Controlled Trial
- RES
- Rapid Evidence Summary
- RR
- Rapid Review
- SR
- Systematic Review
- UK
- United Kingdom
- USA
- United States of America
- WCEC
- Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre
- WHO
- World Health Organisation
- WHODAS
- World Health Organization Disability Assessment Schedule 2.0 12L (WHODAS)