Factors that influence the provision of home-based rehabilitation services for people needing rehabilitation: a qualitative evidence synthesis.

BACKGROUND: To increase people's access to rehabilitation services, particularly in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, we need to explore how the delivery of these services can be adapted. This includes the use of home-based rehabilitation and telerehabilitation. Home-based rehabilitation services may become frequently used options in the recovery process of patients, not only as a solution to accessibility barriers, but as a complement to the usual in-person inpatient rehabilitation provision. Telerehabilitation is also becoming more viable as the usability and availability of communication technologies improve. OBJECTIVES: To identify factors that influence the organisation and delivery of in-person home-based rehabilitation and home-based telerehabilitation for people needing rehabilitation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched PubMed, Global Health, the VHL Regional Portal, Epistemonikos, Health Systems Evidence, and EBM Reviews as well as preprints, regional repositories, and rehabilitation organisations websites for eligible studies, from database inception to search date in June 2022.  SELECTION CRITERIA: We included studies that used qualitative methods for data collection and analysis; and that explored patients, caregivers, healthcare providers and other stakeholders' experiences, perceptions and behaviours about the provision of in-person home-based rehabilitation and home-based telerehabilitation services responding to patients' needs in different phases of their health conditions.   DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used a purposive sampling approach and applied maximum variation sampling in a four-step sampling frame. We conducted a framework thematic analysis using the CFIR (Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research) framework as our starting point. We assessed our confidence in the findings using the GRADE-CERQual (Confidence in the Evidence from Reviews of Qualitative research) approach.  MAIN RESULTS: We included 223 studies in the review and sampled 53 of these for our analysis. Forty-five studies were conducted in high-income countries, and eight in low-and middle-income countries. Twenty studies addressed in-person home-based rehabilitation, 28 studies addressed home-based telerehabilitation services, and five studies addressed both modes of delivery. The studies mainly explored the perspectives of healthcare providers, patients with a range of different health conditions, and their informal caregivers and family members.  Based on our GRADE-CERQual assessments, we had high confidence in eight of the findings, and moderate confidence in five, indicating that it is highly likely or likely respectively that these findings are a reasonable representation of the phenomenon of interest. There were two findings with low confidence. High and moderate confidence findings Home-based rehabilitation services delivered in-person or through telerehabilitation  Patients experience home-based services as convenient and less disruptive of their everyday activities. Patients and providers also suggest that these services can encourage patients' self-management and can make them feel empowered about the rehabilitation process. But patients, family members, and providers describe privacy and confidentiality issues when services are provided at home. These include the increased privacy of being able to exercise at home but also the loss of privacy when one's home life is visible to others.  Patients and providers also describe other factors that can affect the success of home-based rehabilitation services. These include support from providers and family members, good communication with providers, the requirements made of patients and their surroundings, and the transition from hospital to home-based services. Telerehabilitation specifically Patients, family members and providers see telerehabilitation as an opportunity to make services more available. But providers point to practical problems when assessing whether patients are performing their exercises correctly. Providers and patients also describe interruptions from family members.  In addition, providers complain of a lack of equipment, infrastructure and maintenance and patients refer to usability issues and frustration with digital technology. Providers have different opinions about whether telerehabilitation is cost-efficient for them. But many patients see telerehabilitation as affordable and cost-saving if the equipment and infrastructure have been provided. Patients and providers suggest that telerehabilitation can change the nature of their relationship. For instance, some patients describe how telerehabilitation leads to easier and more relaxed communication. Other patients describe feeling abandoned when receiving telerehabilitation services.  Patients, family members and providers call for easy-to-use technologies and more training and support. They also suggest that at least some in-person sessions with the provider are necessary. They feel that telerehabilitation services alone can make it difficult to make meaningful connections. They also explain that some services need the provider's hands. Providers highlight the importance of personalising the services to each person's needs and circumstances. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This synthesis identified several factors that can influence the successful implementation of in-person home-based rehabilitation and telerehabilitation services. These included factors that facilitate implementation, but also factors that can challenge this process. Healthcare providers, program planners and policymakers might benefit from considering these factors when designing and implementing programmes.

Cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, no evidence exists on specific treatments for post COVID-19 condition (PCC). However, rehabilitation interventions that are effective for similar symptoms in other health conditions could be applied to people with PCC. With this overview of systematic reviews with mapping, we aimed to describe the Cochrane evidence on rehabilitation interventions proposed for cognitive impairment, anxiety and depression in different health conditions that can be relevant for PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "cognitive impairment," "depressive disorder," "anxiety disorder," their synonyms and variants, and "rehabilitation" in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 3596 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021, and we included 17 on cognitive impairment and 37 on anxiety and depression. For cognitive impairment, we found 7 CSRs on participants with stroke, 3 with cancer, 2 with Parkinson's disease, and one each for five other health conditions. Each intervention improved a different domain, and included exercises, cognitive and attention-specific training, and computerized cognition-based training (from very low to high-quality evidence). For anxiety and depression, we found 10 CSRs including participants with cancer, 8 with stroke, 3 with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and 2 or 1 each in 11 other health conditions. Exercise training, physical activity and yoga resulted effective in several pathologies (very low- to moderate-quality evidence). In specific diseases, we found effective acupuncture, animal-assisted therapy, aromatherapy, educational programs, home-based multidimensional survivorship programs, manual acupressure massage, memory rehabilitation, non-invasive brain stimulation, pulmonary rehabilitation, and telerehabilitation (very low- to moderate-quality evidence). CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research. They served as the basis for the three recommendations on treatments for these PCC symptoms published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

Dysphagia, dysphonia and olfactory disease: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Currently, no evidence exists on specific treatments for post COVID-19 condition (PCC). However, rehabilitation interventions that proved effective for similar symptoms in other health conditions could be applied to people with PCC. With this overview of systematic reviews with mapping, we aimed to describe the Cochrane evidence on rehabilitation interventions proposed for dysphagia, dysphonia and olfactory dysfunction in different health conditions that can be relevant for PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "dysphagia," "swallowing disorder," "dysphonia," "voice disorder," "olfactory dysfunction," "smell changes" and "rehabilitation" in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 170 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021 and 1 was included. It provided data on dysphagia in acute and subacute stroke. Interventions included were acupuncture, neuromuscular electrical stimulation, transcranial magnetic stimulation and behavioral interventions, and swallowing therapy, with very low- to moderate-quality evidence. We did not find any CSR on dysphonia and olfactory disease. CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research. They served as the basis for the three recommendations on treatments for these PCC symptoms published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

Dyspnea: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation focuses on impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions being informed by the underlying health condition. In the current absence of direct "evidence on" rehabilitation interventions for people with post COVID-19 condition (PCC), we can search and synthesize the indirect "evidence relevant to" coming from interventions effective on the symptoms of PCC in other health conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) required this information to inform expert teams and provide specific recommendations in their Guidelines. With this overview of reviews with mapping we aimed to synthesize in a map the Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for dyspnea due to PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "dyspnea" and its synonyms in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized all the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 371 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021 and included 15 in this overview. We found eight studies on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, two on cancer, and one for bronchiectasis, chronic respiratory disease, cystic fibrosis, idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis and interstitial lung disease. Effective interventions included pulmonary rehabilitation, also in combination with exercise training, non-invasive ventilation, upper limb training and multicomponent integrated interventions, with very low- to moderate-quality evidence. CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research on dyspnea in adults with PCC. They served as the basis for one recommendation on treatments for dyspnea as a PCC symptom published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

Scoping review of rehabilitation care models for post COVID-19 condition.

Objective: To systematically map the current evidence about the characteristics of health systems, providers and patients to design rehabilitation care for post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Methods: We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Registry and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to 22 April 2022. The search strategy included terms related to (i) post COVID-19 condition and other currently known terminologies; (ii) care models and pathways; and (iii) rehabilitation. We applied no language or study design restrictions. Two pairs of researchers independently screened title, abstracts and full-text articles and extracted data. We charted the evidence according to five topics: (i) care model components and functions; (ii) safe delivery of rehabilitation; (iii) referral principles; (iv) service delivery settings; and (v) health-care professionals. Findings: We screened 13 753 titles and abstracts, read 154 full-text articles, and included 37 articles. The current evidence is conceptual and expert based. Care model components included multidisciplinary teams, continuity or coordination of care, people-centred care and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Care model functions included standardized symptoms assessment, telehealth and virtual care and follow-up system. Rehabilitation services were integrated at all levels of a health system from primary care to tertiary hospital-based care. Health-care workers delivering services within a multidisciplinary team included mostly physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Conclusion: Key policy messages include implementing a multilevel and multiprofessional model; leveraging country health systems' strengths and learning from other conditions; financing rehabilitation research providing standardized outcomes; and guidance to increase patient safety.

Arthralgia: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post-COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation focuses on impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions being informed by the underlying health condition. In the current absence of direct "evidence on" rehabilitation interventions for people with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), we can search and synthesize the indirect "evidence relevant to" coming from interventions effective on the symptoms of PCC in other health conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) required this information to inform expert teams and provide specific recommendations in its Guidelines. With this overview of reviews with mapping we aimed to synthesize the Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for arthralgia due to PCC in a map. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "arthralgia," "joint pain," and "rehabilitation" and their synonyms in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized all the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: We found 200 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021, and included 11 in this overview. They provided data from 7 health conditions, with osteoarthritis (5 studies) being the most studied. Effective rehabilitation interventions included exercise training, transcranial magnetic stimulation, different types of electrical stimulation and Tai chi. The overall quality of evidence was mainly low to very low, and moderate in a few cases. CONCLUSIONS: These results provided the requested information to the WHO and served as the basis for one recommendation on treatments for arthralgia due to PCC in the current Guidelines for clinical practice. These results should be interpreted as a first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for future research.

Fatigue, post-exertional malaise and orthostatic intolerance: a map of Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for people with post COVID-19 condition.

INTRODUCTION: Rehabilitation focuses on impairments, activity limitations and participation restrictions being informed by the underlying health condition. In the current absence of direct "evidence on" rehabilitation interventions for people with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC), we can search and synthesize the indirect "evidence relevant to" coming from interventions effective for the symptoms of PCC in other health conditions. The World Health Organization (WHO) required this information to inform expert teams and provide specific recommendations in their Guidelines. With this overview of reviews with mapping, we aimed to synthesize in a map the Cochrane evidence relevant to rehabilitation for fatigue, post-exertional malaise and orthostatic intolerance due to PCC. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: We searched the last five years' Cochrane Systematic Review (CSRs) using the terms "fatigue," "orthostatic intolerance," "rehabilitation" and their synonyms in the Cochrane Library. We extracted and summarized the available evidence using a map. We grouped the included CSRs for health conditions and interventions, indicating the effect and the quality of evidence. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Out of 1397 CSRs published between 2016 and 2021, we included 32 for fatigue and 4 for exercise intolerance. They provided data from 13 health conditions, with cancer (11 studies), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (7 studies), fibromyalgia (4 studies), and cystic fibrosis (3 studies) being the most studied. Effective interventions for fatigue included exercise training and physical activities, telerehabilitation and multicomponent and educational interventions. Effective interventions for exercise intolerance included combined aerobic/anaerobic training and integrated disease rehabilitation management. The overall quality of evidence was low to very low and moderate in very few cases. We did not identify CSRs that specifically addressed post-exertional malaise or orthostatic intolerance. CONCLUSIONS: These results are the first step of indirect evidence able to generate helpful hypotheses for clinical practice and future research. They served as the basis for the three recommendations on treatments for these PCC symptoms published in the current WHO Guidelines for clinical practice.

Cochrane "evidence relevant to" rehabilitation of people with post COVID-19 condition. What it is and how it has been mapped to inform the development of the World Health Organization recommendations.

Cochrane Rehabilitation developed a series of actions to provide the global rehabilitation community with the best available evidence to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic. These initiatives constituted the REH-COVER (Rehabilitation COVID-19 evidence-based response) action. In March 2020, the first initiative started in agreement with the European Journal of Physical and Rehabilitation Medicine (EJPRM): the rapid systematic review of all papers relevant to COVID-19 rehabilitation to inform rehabilitation health professionals rapidly. Currently, we are facing the long-term consequences of COVID-19, initially called "long Covid" and now named post COVID-19 condition (PCC), which led to the request by the WHO Rehabilitation Programme for evidence synthesis to support the development of specific recommendations. Cochrane Rehabilitation provided the best available evidence from the REH-COVER rapid living systematic review results, a systematic scoping review on the models of care and a summary of "evidence relevant to" the rehabilitation for adults with PCC. Based on this evidence, expert groups developed the 16 recommendations for the rehabilitation of adults with PCC recently published in Chapter 24 of the WHO "Clinical management of COVID-19 living guideline." This paper aims to introduce the Special Section of EJPRM reporting the work performed by Cochrane Rehabilitation to produce a summary of the existing "evidence relevant to" the rehabilitation of adults with PCC. The paper reports the methodology (overview of systematic reviews with mapping) and introduces the concept of "evidence relevant to" rehabilitation.

Scoping review of rehabilitation care models for post COVID-19 condition Analyse exploratoire des modèles de réadaptation pour les affections post-COVID-19 Revisión exploratoria de los modelos de atención de rehabilitación para la afección posterior a la COVID-19 مراجعة نطاق نماذج الرعاية التأهيلية في الحالات الصحية اللاحقة لكوفيد 19 新型冠状病毒肺炎大流行后时代康复护理模型的范围审查 Обзорный анализ моделей реабилитационной помощи при постковидном синдроме

Objective To systematically map the current evidence about the characteristics of health systems, providers and patients to design rehabilitation care for post coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) condition. Methods We conducted a scoping review by searching the databases: MEDLINE®, Embase®, Web of Science, Cochrane COVID-19 Registry and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from inception to 22 April 2022. The search strategy included terms related to (i) post COVID-19 condition and other currently known terminologies;(ii) care models and pathways;and (iii) rehabilitation. We applied no language or study design restrictions. Two pairs of researchers independently screened title, s and full-text articles and extracted data. We charted the evidence according to five topics: (i) care model components and functions;(ii) safe delivery of rehabilitation;(iii) referral principles;(iv) service delivery settings;and (v) health-care professionals. Findings We screened 13 753 titles and s, read 154 full-text articles, and included 37 articles. The current evidence is conceptual and expert based. Care model components included multidisciplinary teams, continuity or coordination of care, people-centred care and shared decision-making between clinicians and patients. Care model functions included standardized symptoms assessment, telehealth and virtual care and follow-up system. Rehabilitation services were integrated at all levels of a health system from primary care to tertiary hospital-based care. Health-care workers delivering services within a multidisciplinary team included mostly physiotherapists, occupational therapists and psychologists. Conclusion Key policy messages include implementing a multilevel and multiprofessional model;leveraging country health systems’ strengths and learning from other conditions;financing rehabilitation research providing standardized outcomes;and guidance to increase patient safety.

The Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions in Adults with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder during Clinical Rehabilitation: A Rapid Review.

BACKGROUND: This review examined the effectiveness of behavioral interventions for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) triggered by physical injury or medical trauma. It discusses implications in support of rehabilitation management for COVID-19 survivors diagnosed with PTSD. METHODS: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. The authors searched for randomized control trials in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases up to 31 March 2021. RESULTS: Five studies (n = 459) met the inclusion criteria. Each study measured a different comparison of interventions. The certainty of the evidence was judged to be very low for all outcomes. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptom reduction was found to be in favor of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Cognitive function improvements were observed in favor of the cognitive processing therapy control intervention. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, there is uncertainty about whether behavioral interventions are effective in reducing PTSD symptoms and improving functioning and quality of life when the disorder is triggered by a physical or medical trauma rather than a psychological trauma. Further research should investigate their efficacy in the context of rehabilitation management and gather evidence on this population.

Methodological guidance for incorporating equity when informing rapid-policy and guideline development.

OBJECTIVES: We provide guidance for considering equity in rapid reviews through examples of published COVID-19 rapid reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This guidance was developed based on a series of methodological meetings, review of internationally renowned guidance such as the Cochrane Handbook and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis for equity-focused systematic reviews (PRISMA-Equity) guideline. We identified Exemplar rapid reviews by searching COVID-19 databases and requesting examples from our team. RESULTS: We proposed the following key steps: 1. involve relevant stakeholders with lived experience in the conduct and design of the review; 2. reflect on equity, inclusion and privilege in team values and composition; 3. develop research question to assess health inequities; 4. conduct searches in relevant disciplinary databases; 5. collect data and critically appraise recruitment, retention and attrition for populations experiencing inequities; 6. analyse evidence on equity; 7. evaluate the applicability of findings to populations experiencing inequities; and 8. adhere to reporting guidelines for communicating review findings. We illustrated these methods through rapid review examples. CONCLUSION: Implementing this guidance could contribute to improving equity considerations in rapid reviews produced in public health emergencies, and help policymakers better understand the distributional impact of diseases on the population.

The Effectiveness of Behavioral Interventions in Adults with Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder during Clinical Rehabilitation: A Rapid Review

Background: This review examined the effectiveness of behavioral interventions for adults with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) triggered by physical injury or medical trauma. It discusses implications in support of rehabilitation management for COVID-19 survivors diagnosed with PTSD. Methods: This study adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines and the Interim Guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. The authors searched for randomized control trials in PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL databases up to 31 March 2021. Results: Five studies (n = 459) met the inclusion criteria. Each study measured a different comparison of interventions. The certainty of the evidence was judged to be very low for all outcomes. Post-traumatic stress disorder symptom reduction was found to be in favor of trauma-focused cognitive-behavioral therapy, cognitive therapy, and cognitive-behavioral therapy. Cognitive function improvements were observed in favor of the cognitive processing therapy control intervention. Conclusions: Overall, there is uncertainty about whether behavioral interventions are effective in reducing PTSD symptoms and improving functioning and quality of life when the disorder is triggered by a physical or medical trauma rather than a psychological trauma. Further research should investigate their efficacy in the context of rehabilitation management and gather evidence on this population.

SPINE20 recommendations 2021: spine care for people's health and prosperity.

PURPOSE: The focus of SPINE20 is to develop evidence-based policy recommendations for the G20 countries to work with governments to reduce the burden of spine disease, and disability. METHODS: On September 17-18, 2021, SPINE20 held its annual meeting in Rome, Italy. Prior to the meeting, the SPINE20 created six proposed recommendations. These recommendations were uploaded to the SPINE20 website 10 days before the meeting and opened to the public for comments. The recommendations were discussed at the meeting allowing the participants to object and provide comments. RESULTS: In total, 27 societies endorsed the following recommendations. SPINE20 calls upon the G20 countries: (1) to expand telehealth for the access to spine care, especially in light of the current situation with COVID-19. (2) To adopt value-based interprofessional spine care as an approach to improve patient outcomes and reduce disability. (3) To facilitate access and invest in the development of a competent rehabilitation workforce to reduce the burden of disability related to spine disorders. (4) To adopt a strategy to promote daily physical activity and exercises among the elderly population to maintain an active and independent life with a healthy spine, particularly after COVID-19 pandemic. (5) To engage in capacity building with emerging countries and underserved communities for the benefit of spine patients. (6) To promote strategies to transfer evidence-based advances into patient benefit through effective implementation processes. CONCLUSIONS: SPINE20's initiatives will make governments and decision makers aware of efforts to reduce needless suffering from disabling spine pain through education that can be instituted across the globe.

Rehabilitation and COVID-19: rapid living systematic review by Cochrane Rehabilitation Field - third edition. Update as of June 30th, 2021.

INTRODUCTION: This paper updates and summarizes the current evidence informing rehabilitation of patients with COVID-19 and/or describing the consequences of the disease and its treatment. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Studies published from May 1st to June 30th, 2021 were selected, excluding descriptive studies and expert opinions. Papers were categorized according to study design, research question, COVID-19 phase, limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest, and type of rehabilitation service involved. From this edition, we improved the quality assessment using the Joanna Briggs Institute checklists for observational studies and the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool for randomized-controlled clinical trials (RCTs). EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Twenty-five, out of 3699 papers, were included. They were three RCTs, 13 cross-sectional studies and nine cohort studies. Twenty studies reported data on symptom prevalence (N.=13) or disease natural history (N.=7); and five studies reported intervention effectiveness at the individual level. All study participants were COVID survivors and 48% of studies collected information on participants 6 months or longer after COVID-19 onset. The most frequent risks of bias for RCTs concerned weaknesses in allocation concealment, blinding of therapists, and lack of intention-to-treat analysis. Most analytical studies failed to identify or deal with confounders, describe or deal with dropouts or eventually perform an appropriate statistical analysis. CONCLUSIONS: Most studies in this updated review targeted the prevalence of limitations of functioning of rehabilitation interest in COVID-19 survivors. This is similar to past review findings; however, data in the new studies was collected at longer follow-up periods (up to one year after symptom onset) and in larger samples of participants. More RCTs and analytical observational studies are available, but the methodological quality of recently published studies is low. There is a need for good quality intervention efficacy and effectiveness studies to complement the rapidly expanding evidence from observational studies.