Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39063534›Full record

Observational studyInternational journal of environmental research and public health2024

Recovering from COVID-19 (ReCOV): Feasibility of an Allied-Health-Led Multidisciplinary Outpatient Rehabilitation Service for People with Long COVID.

Aruska N D'Souza, Myvanwy Merrett, Hilda Griffin, An Tran-Duy, Carly Struck, Timothy N Fazio, Genevieve Juj, Catherine L Granger, Casey L Peiris

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–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 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Observational
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

9 authors.

Aruska N D'SouzaAllied Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.
Myvanwy MerrettAllied Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.
Hilda GriffinAllied Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.
An Tran-DuyCentre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Parkville, VIC 3010, Australia.
Carly StruckAllied Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.
Timothy N FazioHealth Intelligence Unit, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.ORCID 0000-0003-1700-2355
Genevieve JujAllied Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.
Catherine L GrangerAllied Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.ORCID 0000-0001-6169-370X
Casey L PeirisAllied Health, The Royal Melbourne Hospital, Parkvillle, VIC 3050, Australia.ORCID 0000-0002-0686-7436

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundA multidisciplinary approach is required for the management of long COVID. The aim of this study was to determine the feasibility (demand, implementation, practicality, acceptability, and limited efficacy) of an allied-health-led multidisciplinary symptom management service (ReCOV) for long COVID.

methodsA single-group observational cohort feasibility study was conducted to determine demand (referrals), acceptability (survey), implementation (waitlist times, health professions seen), practicality (adverse events), and limited efficacy (admission and discharge scores from the World Health Organization Disability Assessment Scale, Brief Illness Perception Questionnaire (BIPQ), Patient Health Questionnaire, and EuroQol 5D-5L). Data are presented as median [interquartile range] or count (percentage).

resultsDuring the study, 143 participants (aged 42.00 [32.00-51.00] years, 68% women) participated in ReCOV. Participants were waitlisted for 3.86 [2.14-9.86] weeks and engaged with 5.00 [3.00-6.00] different health professionals. No adverse events occurred. The thematic analysis revealed that ReCOV was helpful but did not fully meet the needs of all participants. Limited efficacy testing indicated that participants had improved understanding and control (

conclusionsA multidisciplinary service was safe and mostly acceptable to participants for the management of long COVID. Further research should investigate the clinical and cost effectiveness of such a service, including optimal service duration and patient outcomes.

Indexed as

COVID-19Feasibility StudiesAdultCohort StudiesFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedOutpatientsPatient Care TeamPost-Acute COVID-19 SyndromeSARS-CoV-2feasibility studiesoutpatientspost-acute COVID-19 syndrome

Identifiers

PMID39063534
PMCPMC11277266

What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.