Prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog in people with long COVID: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Long COVID can include impaired cognition ('brain fog'; a term encompassing multiple symptoms) and mental health conditions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to estimate their prevalence and to explore relevant factors associated with the incidence of impaired cognition and mental health conditions. METHODS: Searches were conducted in Medline and PsycINFO to cover the start of the pandemic until August 2023. Included studies reported prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog in adults with long COVID after clinically-diagnosed or PCR-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. FINDINGS: 17 studies were included, reporting 41,249 long COVID patients. Across all timepoints (3-24 months), the combined prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog was 20·4% (95% CI 11·1%-34·4%), being lower among those previously hospitalised than in community-managed patients(19·5 vs 29·7% respectively; p = 0·047). The odds of mental health conditions and brain fog increased over time and when validated instruments were used. Odds of brain fog significantly decreased with increasing vaccination rates (p = ·000). CONCLUSIONS: Given the increasing prevalence of mental health conditions and brain fog over time, preventive interventions and treatments are needed. Research is needed to explore underlying mechanisms that could inform further research in development of effective treatments. The reduced risk of brain fog associated with vaccination emphasizes the need for ongoing vaccination programs.

Accessing care for Long Covid from the perspectives of patients and healthcare practitioners: A qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: Long Covid is an emerging long-term condition, with those affected raising concerns about lack of healthcare support. OBJECTIVE: We conducted a qualitative study to identify facilitators and barriers to healthcare access for people with Long Covid, aiming to enhance our understanding of the specific nature of these barriers and how patient experiences may vary. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: In the context of the Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways (STIMULATE-ICP) Delphi study, a nationally distributed online survey was conducted. Eight patients and eight healthcare practitioners (HCP) were interviewed via telephone or video call. Framework analysis, sensitised by the candidacy theory, was used to identify barriers and facilitators over four levels of access to care. RESULTS: Three themes were identified: (i) patients' efforts to navigate emerging pathways for Long Covid, (ii) the patient-HCP interaction and (iii) service resources and structural constraints. Barriers to specialist care included long waiting times, communication gaps across services and a lack of continuity in care. Facilitators included collaborative, patient-centred approaches, patients' active role in their healthcare and blended approaches for appointments. The perspectives of both patients and HCPs largely aligned. DISCUSSION: The candidacy framework was valuable in understanding the experiences of people with Long Covid seeking access to healthcare. Individuals perceived themselves as eligible for care, but they often encountered obstacles in obtaining the expected level of care or, in some cases, did not receive it at all. Our findings are discussed in the context of the candidacy model through multiple processes of identification, negotiation, permeability and appearances at health services. These themes seem to be especially important for the emerging new pathway model and are relevant to both primary and secondary care. CONCLUSIONS: This study highlights that despite these interviews being conducted two years after the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, people with Long Covid still struggle to access healthcare, emphasising the ongoing need to provide equitable timely healthcare access for people with Long Covid. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: People with Long Covid advised on all stages of this research.

Design and development of a digital intervention for workplace stress and mental health (EMPOWER).

Purpose: We describe the design and development of the European Platform to Promote health and wellbeing in the workplace (EMPOWER) digital intervention that provides an integrative user programme meeting the needs of employees and employers in addressing work stress. Results: A user-centred design process was followed from January 2020 until November 2021. A tailored algorithm was developed to provide support at the individual employee level and the company level. Each element of the digital intervention was developed in English and then translated in Spanish, English, Polish and Finnish. The digital intervention consists of a website and a mobile application (app) that provides algorithm-based personalised content after assessing a user's somatic and psychological symptoms, work functioning, and psychosocial risk factors for work stress. It has a public section and an employer portal that provides recommendations to reduce psychosocial risks in their company based upon clustered input from employees. Usability testing was conducted and showed high ease of use and completion of tasks by participants. Conclusion: The EMPOWER digital intervention is a tailored multimodal intervention addressing wellbeing, work stress, mental and physical health problems, and work productivity. This will be used in a planned RCT in four countries to evaluate its effectiveness.

Study protocol of EMPOWER: A cluster randomized trial of a multimodal eHealth intervention for promoting mental health in the workplace following a stepped wedge trial design.

Objective: This article describes the EMPOWER study, a controlled trial aiming to determine the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of an eHealth intervention to prevent common health problems and reduce presenteeism and absenteeism in the workplace. Intervention: The EMPOWER intervention spans universal, secondary and tertiary prevention and consists of an eHealth platform delivered via a website and a smartphone app designed to guide employees throughout different modules according to their specific profiles. Design: A stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial will be implemented in four countries (Finland, Poland, Spain and UK) with employees from small and medium enterprises (SMEs) and public agencies. Companies will be randomly allocated in one of three groups with different times at which the intervention is implemented. The intervention will last 7 weeks. Employees will answer several questionnaires at baseline, pre- and post-intervention and follow-up. Outcome measures: The main outcome is presenteeism. Secondary outcomes include depression, anxiety, insomnia, stress levels, wellbeing and absenteeism. Analyses will be conducted at the individual level using the intention-to-treat approach and mixed models. Additional analyses will evaluate the intervention effects according to gender, country or type of company. Cost-effectiveness and cost-utility analyses [based on the use of quality-adjusted life-years (QALYS)] will consider a societal, employers' and employees' perspective.

Effectiveness of tailored digital health interventions for mental health at the workplace: A systematic review of randomised controlled trials.

Mental health problems in the workplace are common and have a considerable impact on employee wellbeing and productivity. Mental ill-health costs employers between £33 billion and £42 billion a year. According to a 2020 HSE report, roughly 2,440 per 100,000 workers in the UK were affected by work-related stress, depression, or anxiety, resulting in an estimated 17.9 million working days lost. We performed a systematic review of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) to assess the effect of tailored digital health interventions provided in the workplace aiming to improve mental health, presenteeism and absenteeism of employees. We searched several databases for RCTs published from 2000 onwards. Data were extracted into a standardised data extraction form. The quality of the included studies was assessed using the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool. Due to the heterogeneity of outcome measures, narrative synthesis was used to summarise the findings. Seven RCTs (eight publications) were included that evaluated tailored digital interventions versus waiting list control or usual care to improve physical and mental health outcomes and work productivity. The results are promising to the advantage of tailored digital interventions regarding presenteeism, sleep, stress levels, and physical symptoms related to somatisation; but less for addressing depression, anxiety, and absenteeism. Even though tailored digital interventions did not reduce anxiety and depression in the general working population, they significantly reduced depression and anxiety in employees with higher levels of psychological distress. Tailored digital interventions seem more effective in employees with higher levels of distress, presenteeism or absenteeism than in the general working population. There was high heterogeneity in outcome measures, especially for work productivity; this should be a focus of attention in future studies.