ArticleBMJ open respiratory research2025
Clinical and cost-effectiveness of diverse posthospitalisation pathways for COVID-19: a UK evaluation using the PHOSP-COVID cohort.
Article in BMJ open respiratory research, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Consortium-Based Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement for Long COVID Research: A Pirit-Focused Impact Evaluation of the PHOSP-COVID Study.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2026Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
37 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLong covid has emerged as a complex health condition for millions of people worldwide following the COVID-19 pandemic. Previously, we have categorised healthcare pathways for patients after discharge from hospital with COVID-19 across 45 UK sites. The aim of this work was to estimate the clinical and cost-effectiveness of these pathways.
methodsWe examined prospectively collected data from 1013 patients at 12 months postdischarge on whether they felt fully recovered (self-report), number of newly diagnosed conditions (NDC), quality of life (EuroQoL-five dimension-five level (EQ-5D-5L) utility score compared with pre-COVID estimate) and healthcare resource costs (healthcare records). An analysis of the cost-effectiveness was performed by combining the healthcare resource cost and 1-year EQ-5D (giving a quality-adjusted life-year (QALY)) using statistical models that accounted for observed confounding.
resultsAt 1 year, 29% of participants felt fully recovered, and 41% of patients had an NDC. The most comprehensive services, where all patients could potentially access assessment, rehabilitation and mental health services, were more clinically effective when compared with either no service or light touch services (mean (SE) QALY 0.789 (0.012) vs 0.725 (0.026)), with an estimated cost per QALY of £1700 (95% uncertainty interval: dominated to £24 800).
conclusionOur analysis supports the need for proactive, stratified, comprehensive follow-up, particularly assessment and rehabilitation for adults after hospitalisation with COVID-19, showing these services are likely to be both clinically and cost-effective according to commonly accepted thresholds.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic 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 Socratic graph.