Long COVID and Health Inequalities: What's Next for Research and Policy Advocacy?

INTRODUCTION: Organised by the 'Qualitative Long Covid Network', a workshop for qualitative Long COVID (LC) researchers, LC charity representatives and people with LC took place in June 2023, where research on the intersectional inequalities affecting LC prevalence, recognition and care was shared and discussed. METHODS: Five key themes were drawn up from presentations, discussions and reflections during the workshop, which are presented in this study. RESULTS: The following five themes are discussed: the unfairness of LC, difficulties in accessing care, mistrust of the healthcare system, a lack of understanding of LC and experiences of stigma and discrimination. Factors that widen or narrow inequalities related to LC were identified. CONCLUSION: A call to action is proposed to investigate and address inequalities through a robust LC research agenda that speaks with conviction to policy and decision-makers. We argue that there needs to be a strong investment in research and evidence-based policy and practice to mitigate the worst effects of the condition and address the inequalities in experience, treatment and support, which are experienced more often and more acutely by some of society's most vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals. PATIENT AND PUBLIC (PPI) CONTRIBUTION: Projects included in this article had PPI ongoing activity to inform their research. A member of the CONVALESCENCE PPI group presented at the QLC Network 'Long Covid and Health Inequalities' workshop, as did members of Long COVID Kids, Long COVID Support and Long COVID SOS charities. They were all invited to be co-authors of this article.

What is current care for people with Long COVID in England? A qualitative interview study.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate current care for people with Long COVID in England. DESIGN: In-depth, semistructured interviews with people living with Long COVID and Long COVID healthcare professionals; data analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: National Health Service England post-COVID-19 services in six clinics from November 2022 to July 2023. PARTICIPANTS: 15 healthcare professionals and 21 people living with Long COVID currently attending or discharged (18 female; 3 male). RESULTS: Health professionals and people with lived experience highlighted the multifaceted nature of Long COVID, including its varied symptoms, its impact on people's lives and the complexity involved in managing this condition. These impacts encompass physical, social, mental and environmental dimensions. People with Long COVID reported barriers in accessing primary care, as well as negative general practitioner consultations where they felt unheard or invalidated, though some positive interactions were also noted. Peer support or support systems proved highly valuable and beneficial for individuals, aiding their recovery and well-being. Post-COVID-19 services were viewed as spaces where overlooked voices found validation, offering more than medical expertise. Despite initial challenges, healthcare providers' increasing expertise in diagnosing and treating Long COVID has helped refine care approaches for this condition. CONCLUSION: Long COVID care in England is not uniform across all locations. Effective communication, specialised expertise and comprehensive support systems are crucial. A patient-centred approach considering the unique complexities of Long COVID, including physical, mental health, social and environmental aspects is needed. Sustained access to post-COVID-19 services is imperative, with success dependent on offering continuous rehabilitation beyond rapid recovery, acknowledging the condition's enduring impacts and complexities.

Barriers to healthcare access and experiences of stigma: Findings from a coproduced Long Covid case-finding study.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Long Covid is often stigmatised, particularly in people who are disadvantaged within society. This may prevent them from seeking help and could lead to widening health inequalities. This coproduced study with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) of people with Long Covid aimed to understand healthcare and wider barriers and stigma experienced by people with probable Long Covid. METHODS: An active case finding approach was employed to find adults with probable, but not yet clinically diagnosed, Long Covid in two localities in London (Camden and Merton) and Derbyshire, England. Interviews explored the barriers to care and the stigma faced by participants and were analysed thematically. This study forms part of the STIMULATE-ICP Collaboration. FINDINGS: Twenty-three interviews were completed. Participants reported limited awareness of what Long Covid is and the available pathways to management. There was considerable self-doubt among participants, sometimes reinforced by interactions with healthcare professionals (HCPs). Participants questioned their deservedness in seeking healthcare support for their symptoms. Hesitancy to engage with healthcare services was motivated by fear of needing more investigation and concerns regarding judgement about the ability to carry out caregiving responsibilities. It was also motivated by the complexity of the clinical presentation and fear of all symptoms being attributed to poor mental health. Participants also reported trying to avoid overburdening the health system. These difficulties were compounded by experiences of stigma and discrimination. The emerging themes reaffirmed a framework of epistemic injustice in relation to Long Covid, where creating, interpreting and conveying knowledge has varied credibility based on the teller's identity characteristics and/or the level of their interpretive resources. CONCLUSION: We have codeveloped recommendations based on the findings. These include early signposting to services, dedicating protected time to listening to people with Long Covid, providing a holistic approach in care pathways, and working to mitigate stigma. Regardless of the diagnosis, people experiencing new symptoms must be encouraged to seek timely medical help. Clear public health messaging is needed among communities already disadvantaged by epistemic injustice to raise awareness of Long Covid, and to share stories that encourage seeking care and to illustrate the adverse effects of stigma. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: This study was coproduced with a CAB made up of 23 members including HCPs, people with lived experience of Long Covid and other stakeholders.

Long Covid active case finding study protocol: A co-produced community-based pilot within the STIMULATE-ICP study (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways).

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Long Covid is a significant public health concern with potentially negative implications for health inequalities. We know that those who are already socially disadvantaged in society are more exposed to COVID-19, experience the worst health outcomes and are more likely to suffer economically. We also know that these groups are more likely to experience stigma and have negative healthcare experiences even before the pandemic. However, little is known about disadvantaged groups' experiences of Long Covid, and preliminary evidence suggests they may be under-represented in those who access formal care. We will conduct a pilot study in a defined geographical area in London, United Kingdom to test the feasibility of a community-based approach of identifying Long Covid cases that have not been clinically diagnosed and have not been referred to Long Covid specialist services. We will explore the barriers to accessing recognition, care, and support, as well as experiences of stigma and perceived discrimination. METHODS: This protocol and study materials were co-produced with a Community Advisory Board (CAB) made up primarily of people living with Long Covid. Working with voluntary organisations, a study leaflet will be distributed in the local community to highlight Long Covid symptoms and invite those experiencing them to participate in the study if they are not formally diagnosed. Potential participants will be assessed according to the study's inclusion criteria and offered the opportunity to participate if they fit them. Awareness of Long Covid and associated symptoms, experiences of trying to access care, as well as stigma and discrimination will be explored through qualitative interviews with participants. Upon completion of the interviews, participants will be offered a referral to the local social prescribing team to receive support that is personalised to them potentially including, but not restricted to, liaising with their primary care provider and the regional Long Covid clinic.

STIMULATE-ICP-CAREINEQUAL (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways) study protocol: Defining usual care and examining inequalities in Long Covid support.

INTRODUCTION: Individuals with Long Covid represent a new and growing patient population. In England, fewer than 90 Long Covid clinics deliver assessment and treatment informed by NICE guidelines. However, a paucity of clinical trials or longitudinal cohort studies means that the epidemiology, clinical trajectory, healthcare utilisation and effectiveness of current Long Covid care are poorly documented, and that neither evidence-based treatments nor rehabilitation strategies exist. In addition, and in part due to pre-pandemic health inequalities, access to referral and care varies, and patient experience of the Long Covid care pathways can be poor. In a mixed methods study, we therefore aim to: (1) describe the usual healthcare, outcomes and resource utilisation of individuals with Long Covid; (2) assess the extent of inequalities in access to Long Covid care, and specifically to understand Long Covid patients' experiences of stigma and discrimination. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: A mixed methods study will address our aims. Qualitative data collection from patients and health professionals will be achieved through surveys, interviews and focus group discussions, to understand their experience and document the function of clinics. A patient cohort study will provide an understanding of outcomes and costs of care. Accessible data will be further analysed to understand the nature of Long Covid, and the care received. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from South Central-Berkshire Research Ethics Committee (reference 303958). The dissemination plan will be decided by the patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group members and study Co-Is, but will target 1) policy makers, and those responsible for commissioning and delivering Long Covid services, 2) patients and the public, and 3) academics.

Evaluating the effectiveness and cost effectiveness of the 'strengthening families, strengthening communities' group-based parenting programme: study protocol and initial insights.

BACKGROUND: Up to 20% of UK children experience socio-emotional difficulties which can have serious implications for themselves, their families and society. Stark socioeconomic and ethnic inequalities in children's well-being exist. Supporting parents to develop effective parenting skills is an important preventive strategy in reducing inequalities. Parenting interventions have been developed, which aim to reduce the severity and impact of these difficulties. However, most parenting interventions in the UK focus on early childhood (0-10 years) and often fail to engage families from ethnic minority groups and those living in poverty. Strengthening Families, Strengthening Communities (SFSC) is a parenting programme designed by the Race Equality Foundation, which aims to address this gap. Evidence from preliminary studies is encouraging, but no randomised controlled trials have been undertaken so far. METHODS/DESIGN: The TOGETHER study is a multi-centre, waiting list controlled, randomised trial, which aims to test the effectiveness of SFSC in families with children aged 3-18 across seven urban areas in England with ethnically and socially diverse populations. The primary outcome is parental mental well-being (assessed by the Warwick-Edinburgh Mental Well-Being Scale). Secondary outcomes include child socio-emotional well-being, parenting practices, family relationships, self-efficacy, quality of life, and community engagement. Outcomes are assessed at baseline, post intervention, three- and six-months post intervention. Cost effectiveness will be estimated using a cost-utility analysis and cost-consequences analysis. The study is conducted in two stages. Stage 1 comprised a 6-month internal pilot to determine the feasibility of the trial. A set of progression criteria were developed to determine whether the stage 2 main trial should proceed. An embedded process evaluation will assess the fidelity and acceptability of the intervention. DISCUSSION: In this paper we provide details of the study protocol for this trial. We also describe challenges to implementing the protocol and how these were addressed. Once completed, if beneficial effects on both parental and child outcomes are found, the impact, both immediate and longer term, are potentially significant. As the intervention focuses on supporting families living in poverty and those from minority ethnic communities, the intervention should also ultimately have a beneficial impact on reducing health inequalities. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospectively registered Randomised Controlled Trial ISRCTN15194500 .