Post-exertional malaise may persist in Long COVID despite learning STOP-REST-PACE

Background Objective Methods Results Conclusions Physical activity used in rehabilitation can trigger post-exertional malaise (PEM) in people with Long COVID. Concerns remain if the STOP-REST-PACE approach promoted by patient communities and professional organizations can be safely administered and contributes to return to usual activities.(1) To observe PEM over 12 weeks of telerehabilitation based on the STOP-REST-PACE approach. (2) To describe the changes in health-related quality of life (HRQoL), respiratory symptoms, fatigue and return to work.This was an observational prospective cohort of participants with Long COVID referred to a telerehabilitation service. Participants received up to 14 h of physiotherapy and occupational therapy over 12 weeks based on the STOP-REST-PACE approach. Frequency was personalized, up to two sessions weekly. An independent coordinator assessed PEM, HRQoL, respiratory symptoms, fatigue and return to work.Thirty-four participants were included and 30 completed the 12 weeks of telerehabilitation. Participants had an average of eight impairments. We found PEM in all participants at baseline. After 12 weeks, PEM remained present for 19 out of 30 participants. Respiratory symptoms significantly improved (COPD Assessment Test: 19.2 ± 7.3 vs 13.8 ± 7.7, p < .001). Fatigue and HRQoL did not significantly improve (p = 0.32 and p = 0.20, respectively). Only four participants were able to work full time.PEM persisted for close to two-third of participants despite learning the STOP-REST-PACE approach through physical and occupational therapy sessions over 12 weeks. Respiratory symptoms improved, but we did not observe a difference in fatigue and HRQoL. Return to work was out of reach for most participants. [ FROM AUTHOR] Copyright of Fatigue: Biomedicine, Health & Behavior is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full . (Copyright applies to all s.)

Decisional needs assessment for patient-centred pain care in Canada: the DECIDE-PAIN study protocol.

INTRODUCTION: The 2021 Action Plan for Pain from the Canadian Pain Task Force advocates for patient-centred pain care at all levels of healthcare across provinces. Shared decision-making is the crux of patient-centred care. Implementing the action plan will require innovative shared decision-making interventions, specifically following the disruption of chronic pain care during the COVID-19 pandemic. The first step in this endeavour is to assess current decisional needs (ie, decisions most important to them) of Canadians with chronic pain across their care pathways. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: DesignGrounded in patient-oriented research approaches, we will perform an online population-based survey across the ten Canadian provinces. We will report methods and data following the CROSS reporting guidelines.SamplingThe Léger Marketing company will administer the online population-based survey to its representative panel of 500 000 Canadians to recruit 1646 adults (age ≥18 years old) with chronic pain according to the definition by the International Association for the Study of Pain (eg, pain ≥12 weeks). ContentBased on the Ottawa Decision Support Framework, the self-administered survey has been codesigned with patients and contain six core domains: (1) healthcare services, consultation and postpandemic needs, (2) difficult decisions experienced, (3) decisional conflict, (4) decisional regret, (5) decisional needs and (6) sociodemographic characteristics. We will use several strategies such as random sampling to improve survey quality. AnalysisWe will perform descriptive statistical analysis. We will identify factors associated with clinically significant decisional conflict and decision regret using multivariate analyses. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics was approved by the Research Ethics Board at the Research Centre of the Centre Hospitalier Universitaire de Sherbrooke (project #2022-4645). We will codesign knowledge mobilisation products with research patient partners (eg, graphical summaries and videos). Results will be disseminated via peer-reviewed journals and national and international conferences to inform the development of innovative shared decision-making interventions for Canadians with chronic pain.

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.

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.