Neurological Dysfunction in Long COVID Should Not Be Labelled as Functional Neurological Disorder.

There have been suggestions that Long COVID might be purely functional (meaning psychological) in origin. Labelling patients with neurological dysfunction in Long COVID as having functional neurological disorder (FND) in the absence of proper testing may be symptomatic of that line of thought. This practice is problematic for Long COVID patients, as motor and balance symptoms have been reported to occur in Long COVID frequently. FND is characterized by the presentation of symptoms that seem neurological but lack compatibility of the symptom with a neurological substrate. Although diagnostic classification according to the ICD-11 and DSM-5-TR is dependent predominantly on the exclusion of any other medical condition that could account for the symptoms, current neurological practice of FND classification allows for such comorbidity. As a consequence, Long COVID patients with motor and balance symptoms mislabeled as FND have no longer access to Long COVID care, whereas treatment for FND is seldom provided and is ineffective. Research into underlying mechanisms and diagnostic methods should explore how to determine whether motor and balance symptoms currently diagnosed as FND should be considered one part of Long COVID symptoms, in other words, one component of symptomatology, and in which cases they correctly represent FND. Research into rehabilitation models, treatment and integrated care are needed, which should take into account biological underpinnings as well as possible psychological mechanisms and the patient perspective.

COVID-19-related consultation-liaison (CL) mental health services in general hospitals: A perspective from Europe and beyond.

OBJECTIVE: The COVID-19 pandemic posed new challenges for integrated health care worldwide. Our study aimed to describe newly implemented structures and procedures of psychosocial consultation and liaison (CL) services in Europe and beyond, and to highlight emerging needs for co-operation. METHODS: Cross-sectional online survey from June to October 2021, using a self-developed 25-item questionnaire in four language versions (English, French, Italian, German). Dissemination was via national professional societies, working groups, and heads of CL services. RESULTS: Of the participating 259 CL services from Europe, Iran, and parts of Canada, 222 reported COVID-19 related psychosocial care (COVID-psyCare) in their hospital. Among these, 86.5% indicated that specific COVID-psyCare co-operation structures had been established. 50.8% provided specific COVID-psyCare for patients, 38.2% for relatives, and 77.0% for staff. Over half of the time resources were invested for patients. About a quarter of the time was used for staff, and these interventions, typically associated with the liaison function of CL services, were reported as most useful. Concerning emerging needs, 58.1% of the CL services providing COVID-psyCare expressed wishes for mutual information exchange and support, and 64.0% suggested specific changes or improvements that they considered essential for the future. CONCLUSION: Over 80% of participating CL services established specific structures to provide COVID-psyCare for patients, their relatives, or staff. Mostly, resources were committed to patient care and specific interventions were largely implemented for staff support. Future development of COVID-psyCare warrants intensified intra- and inter-institutional exchange and co-operation.

General practitioners' wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Novel methods with social media data.

BACKGROUND: It is difficult to engage busy healthcare professionals in research. Yet during the COVID-19 pandemic, gaining their perspectives has never been more important. OBJECTIVE: To explore social media data for insights into the wellbeing of UK General Practitioners (GPs) during the Covid-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used a combination of search approaches to identify 381 practising UK NHS GPs on Twitter. Using a two stage social media analysis, we firstly searched for key themes from 91,034 retrieved tweets (before and during the pandemic). Following this we used qualitative content analysis to provide in-depth insights from 7145 tweets related to wellbeing. RESULTS: Social media proved a useful tool to identify a cohort of UK GPs; following their tweets longitudinally to explore key themes and trends in issues related to GP wellbeing during the pandemic. These predominately related to support, resources and public perceptions and fluctuations were identified at key timepoints during the pandemic, all achieved without burdening busy GPs. CONCLUSION: Social media data can be searched to identify a cohort of GPs to explore their wellbeing and changes over time.

STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: As mortality rates from COVID-19 disease fall, the high prevalence of long-term sequelae (Long COVID) is becoming increasingly widespread, challenging healthcare systems globally. Traditional pathways of care for Long Term Conditions (LTCs) have tended to be managed by disease-specific specialties, an approach that has been ineffective in delivering care for patients with multi-morbidity. The multi-system nature of Long COVID and its impact on physical and psychological health demands a more effective model of holistic, integrated care. The evolution of integrated care systems (ICSs) in the UK presents an important opportunity to explore areas of mutual benefit to LTC, multi-morbidity and Long COVID care. There may be benefits in comparing and contrasting ICPs for Long COVID with ICPs for other LTCs. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This study aims to evaluate health services requirements for ICPs for Long COVID and their applicability to other LTCs including multi-morbidity and the overlap with medically not yet explained symptoms (MNYES). The study will follow a Delphi design and involve an expert panel of stakeholders including people with lived experience, as well as clinicians with expertise in Long COVID and other LTCs. Study processes will include expert panel and moderator panel meetings, surveys, and interviews. The Delphi process is part of the overall STIMULATE-ICP programme, aimed at improving integrated care for people with Long COVID. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval for this Delphi study has been obtained (Research Governance Board of the University of York) as have approvals for the other STIMULATE-ICP studies. Study outcomes are likely to inform policy for ICPs across LTCs. Results will be disseminated through scientific publication, conference presentation and communications with patients and stakeholders involved in care of other LTCs and Long COVID. REGISTRATION: Researchregistry: https://www.researchregistry.com/browse-the-registry#home/registrationdetails/6246bfeeeaaed6001f08dadc/.

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.

Strategies for Implementing Occupational eMental Health Interventions: Scoping Review.

BACKGROUND: The implementation of eMental health interventions, especially in the workplace, is a complex process. Therefore, learning from existing implementation strategies is imperative to ensure improvements in the adoption, development, and scalability of occupational eMental health (OeMH) interventions. However, the implementation strategies used for these interventions are often undocumented or inadequately reported and have not been systematically gathered across implementations in a way that can serve as a much-needed guide for researchers. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this scoping review was to identify implementation strategies relevant to the uptake of OeMH interventions that target employees and detail the associated barriers and facilitation measures. METHODS: A scoping review was conducted. The descriptive synthesis was guided by the RE-AIM (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance) framework and the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research. RESULTS: A total of 31 of 32,916 (0.09%) publications reporting the use of the web-, smartphone-, telephone-, and email-based OeMH interventions were included. In all, 98 implementation strategies, 114 barriers, and 131 facilitators were identified. The synthesis of barriers and facilitators produced 19 facilitation measures that provide initial recommendations for improving the implementation of OeMH interventions. CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review represents one of the first steps in a research agenda aimed at improving the implementation of OeMH interventions by systematically selecting, shaping, evaluating, and reporting implementation strategies. There is a dire need for improved reporting of implementation strategies and combining common implementation frameworks with more technology-centric implementation frameworks to fully capture the complexities of eHealth implementation. Future research should investigate a wider range of common implementation outcomes for OeMH interventions that also focus on a wider set of common mental health problems in the workplace. This scoping review's findings can be critically leveraged by discerning decision-makers to improve the reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, and maintenance of OeMH interventions.

GP wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Doctors' organisations in the UK have reported worrying levels of work-related stress and burnout in the GP workforce for some time, and the COVID-19 pandemic has presented clear new challenges. AIM: To synthesise international evidence exploring the impact of COVID-19 on primary care doctors' mental health and wellbeing, and identify risk factors associated with their psychological wellbeing during this time. DESIGN AND SETTING: Mixed-methods systematic review. METHOD: Six bibliographic databases, Google Scholar, and MedRxiv were searched on 19 November 2020 and 3 June 2021 to identify studies of GP psychological wellbeing during the pandemic. Reference checking was also conducted. Two reviewers selected studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of studies using standardised tools. Heterogeneity in outcomes, setting, and design prohibited statistical pooling; studies were combined using a convergent integrated thematic synthesis. RESULTS: Thirty-one studies were included. Multiple sources of stress were identified including changed working practices; risk, exposure, and inadequate personal protective equipment (PPE); information overload; pandemic preparedness; and cohesion across sectors. Studies demonstrated an impact on psychological wellbeing, with some GPs experiencing stress, burnout, anxiety, depression, fear of COVID-19, lower job satisfaction, and physical symptoms. Studies reported gender and age differences: women GPs had poorer psychological outcomes across all domains, and older GPs reported greater stress and burnout. Use of outcome measures and reporting practice varied greatly. CONCLUSION: This review of international evidence demonstrates that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected GPs' wellbeing around the world. Further research could explore gender and age differences, identifying interventions targeted to these groups.

Assessment of cytokines, microRNA and patient related outcome measures in conversion disorder/functional neurological disorder (CD/FND): The CANDO clinical feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: Conversion disorder/functional neurological disorder (CD/FND) occurs often in neurological settings and can lead to long-term distress, disability and demand on health care services. Systemic low-grade inflammation might play a role, however, the pathogenic mechanism is still unknown. AIM: 1) To explore the feasibility to establish and assess a cohort of CD/FND with motor symptoms, involving persons with lived experience (PPI). 2) To generate proof of concept regarding a possible role for cytokines, microRNA, cortisol levels and neurocognitive symptoms in patients with motor CD/FND. METHOD: Feasibility study. RESULTS: The study showed active involvement of patients despite high clinical illness burden and disability, neurocognitive symptoms, childhood adverse experiences (ACE) and current life events. The study provided valuable knowledge regarding the feasibility of conducting a study in these patients that will inform future study phases. In the sample there were elevated levels of IL6, IL12, IL17A, IFNg, TNFa and VEGF-a, suggesting systemic low-grade inflammation. Also, microRNAs involved in inflammation and vascular inflammation were correlated with TNFa and VEGFa respectively, suggesting proof of concept for an epigenetic mechanism. Owing to the COVID-19 outbreak, the patient sample was limited to 15 patients. CONCLUSION: It is a novelty that this study is conducted in the clinical setting. This innovative, translational study explores stress-related SLI in CD/FND patients and the feasibility of a larger project aiming to develop new treatments for this vulnerable population. Given the positive findings, there is scope to conduct further research into the mechanism of disease in CD/FND.

Workplace Stress, Presenteeism, Absenteeism, and Resilience Amongst University Staff and Students in the COVID-19 Lockdown.

Background: This study explored how the COVID-19 outbreak and arrangements such as remote working and furlough affect work or study stress levels and functioning in staff and students at the University of York, UK. Methods: An invitation to participate in an online survey was sent to all University of York staff and students in May-June 2020. We measured stress levels [VAS-scale, Perceived Stress Questionnaire (PSQ)], mental health [anxiety (GAD-7), depression (PHQ-9)], physical health (PHQ-15, chronic medical conditions checklist), presenteeism, and absenteeism levels (iPCQ). We explored demographic and other characteristics as factors which may contribute to resilience and vulnerability for the impact of COVID-19 on stress. Results: One thousand and fifty five staff and nine hundred and twenty five students completed the survey. Ninety-eight per cent of staff and seventy-eight per cent of students worked or studied remotely. 7% of staff and 10% of students reported sickness absence. 26% of staff and 40% of the students experienced presenteeism. 22-24% of staff reported clinical-level anxiety and depression scores, and 37.2 and 46.5% of students. Staff experienced high stress levels due to COVID-19 (66.2%, labeled vulnerable) and 33.8% experienced low stress levels (labeled resilient). Students were 71.7% resilient vs. 28.3% non-resilient. Predictors of vulnerability in staff were having children [OR = 2.23; CI (95) = 1.63-3.04] and social isolation [OR = 1.97; CI (95) = 1.39-2.79] and in students, being female [OR = 1.62; CI (95) = 1.14-2.28], having children [OR = 2.04; CI (95) = 1.11-3.72], and social isolation [OR = 1.78; CI (95) = 1.25-2.52]. Resilience was predicted by exercise in staff [OR = 0.83; CI (95) = 0.73-0.94] and in students [OR = 0.85; CI (95) = 0.75-0.97]. Discussion: University staff and students reported high psychological distress, presenteeism and absenteeism. However, 33.8% of staff and 71.7% of the students were resilient. Amongst others, female gender, having children, and having to self-isolate contributed to vulnerability. Exercise contributed to resilience. Conclusion: Resilience occurred much more often in students than in staff, although psychological distress was much higher in students. This suggests that predictors of resilience may differ from psychological distress per se. Hence, interventions to improve resilience should not only address psychological distress but may also address other factors.