Long COVID quality of life and healthcare experiences in the UK: a mixed method online survey.

PURPOSE: The complexity of long COVID and its diverse symptom profile contributes to unprecedented challenges for patients, clinicians, and healthcare services. The threat of long COVID remains ignored by Governments, the media and public health messaging, and patients' experiences must be heard through understanding of the lived experience. This study aimed to understand the lived experience of those living with long COVID. METHODS: An online web-based survey was designed using Patient and Public Involvement and Engagement (PPIE) to increase understanding of the lived experiences of long COVID, and was distributed through PPIE groups, social media, and word of mouth. The survey used closed and open questions relating to demographics, pre- and post-COVID-19 health quality of life, daily activities and long COVID experiences. RESULTS: Within our sample of 132 people living with long COVID, the findings highlight that individuals are being severely impacted by their symptoms and are unable to or limited in participating in their daily activities, reducing quality of life. Long COVID places strain on relationships, the ability to live life fully and is detrimental to mental health. Varying health care experiences are described by participants, with reports of medical gaslighting and inadequate support received. CONCLUSIONS: Long COVID has a severe impact on the ability to live life fully, and strains mental health. The appropriate mechanisms and support services are needed to support those living with long COVID and manage symptoms.

Acute COVID-19, the Lived Experience, and Lessons to Learn for Future Pandemics.

OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to increase the understanding of the lived experience of patients during the acute phase of a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infection. METHOD: A Web-based survey was distributed through established patient and public engagement and involvement groups and networks, social media, and by means of word of mouth. The survey covered questions relating to patient demographics, COVID-19 diagnosis, symptom profile, and patient experience during acute COVID-19. RESULTS: The findings demonstrate the varying symptom profiles experienced by people in the acute stage of COVID-19 infection, with participants sharing how they managed care at home, and/or accessed medical advice. Findings also highlight themes that people were concerned with being unable to receive care and believed they needed to rely heavily on family, with extreme thoughts of death. CONCLUSIONS: Although the urgent threat to public health has been negated by efficacious vaccines and enhanced treatment strategies, there are key lessons from the lived experience of COVID-19 that should be used to prepare for future pandemics and public health emergencies.

Forming a consensus opinion to inform long COVID support mechanisms and interventions: a modified Delphi approach.

Background: Current approaches to support patients living with post-COVID condition, also known as Long COVID, are highly disparate with limited success in managing or resolving a well-documented and long-standing symptom burden. With approximately 2.1 million people living with the condition in the UK alone and millions more worldwide, there is a desperate need to devise support strategies and interventions for patients. Methods: A three-round Delphi consensus methodology was distributed internationally using an online survey and was completed by healthcare professionals (including clinicians, physiotherapists, and general practitioners), people with long COVID, and long COVID academic researchers (round 1 n = 273, round 2 n = 186, round 3 n = 138). Across the three rounds, respondents were located predominantly in the United Kingdom (UK), with 17.3-15.2% (round 1, n = 47; round 2 n = 32, round 2 n = 21) of respondents located elsewhere (United States of America (USA), Austria, Malta, United Arab Emirates (UAE), Finland, Norway, Malta, Netherlands, Iceland, Canada, Tunisie, Brazil, Hungary, Greece, France, Austrailia, South Africa, Serbia, and India). Respondents were given ∼5 weeks to complete the survey following enrolment, with round one taking place from 02/15/2022 to 03/28/22, round two; 05/09/2022 to 06/26/2022, and round 3; 07/14/2022 to 08/09/2022. A 5-point Likert scale of agreement was used and the opportunity to include free text responses was provided in the first round. Findings: Fifty-five statements reached consensus (defined as >80% agree and strongly agree), across the domains of i) long COVID as a condition, ii) current support and care available for long COVID, iii) clinical assessments for long COVID, and iv) support mechanisms and rehabilitation interventions for long COVID, further sub-categorised by consideration, inclusion, and focus. Consensus reached proposes that long COVID requires specialised, comprehensive support mechanisms and that interventions should form a personalised care plan guided by the needs of the patients. Supportive approaches should focus on individual symptoms, including but not limited to fatigue, cognitive dysfunction, and dyspnoea, utilising pacing, fatigue management, and support returning to daily activities. The mental impact of living with long COVID, tolerance to physical activity, emotional distress and well-being, and research of pre-existing conditions with similar symptoms, such as myalgic encephalomyelitis, should also be considered when supporting people with long COVID. Interpretation: We provide an outline that achieved consensus with stakeholders that could be used to inform the design and implementation of bespoke long COVID support mechanisms. Funding: None.

Validity of three accelerometers during treadmill walking and motor vehicle travel.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the relative accuracy during treadmill walking and motor vehicle travel of the ActivPAL, PALlite and Digi-Walker accelerometers. METHODS: Forty healthy volunteers wearing all accelerometers undertook either five treadmill walks (n=20) at speeds ranging between 0.6 and 1.4 m/s or a 15 min motor vehicle journey (n=20). Step counts recorded by each accelerometer were compared with the actual step count determined by video analysis (treadmill walking) or with an actual step count of zero (motor vehicle). Mean percentage measurement error was calculated and compared between devices by one-way ANOVA and Student t test. RESULTS: For treadmill walking, the measurement error was lowest for the ActivPAL, with no significant differences between the ActivPAL and the PALlite monitors. The measurement error was significantly higher for the Digi-Walker at speeds of < or =1 m/s. During vehicle travel erroneous steps were recorded by the PALlite (254 steps) and Digi-Walker (25 steps), but not the ActivPAL monitor (0 steps). CONCLUSIONS: The ActivPAL accelerometer accurately measures step count over a range of walking speeds and, unlike the other accelerometers tested, is not falsely triggered by motor vehicle travel.