Return-to-Work Following Occupational Rehabilitation for Long COVID: Descriptive Cohort Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Emerging evidence suggests that worldwide, between 30% and 50% of those who are infected with COVID-19 experience long COVID (LC) symptoms. These symptoms create challenges with return-to-work (RTW) in a high proportion of individuals with LC. To tailor rehabilitation programs to LC sequelae and help improve RTW outcomes, more research on LC rehabilitation program outcomes is needed. Objective This study describes the characteristics and outcomes of workers who participated in an LC occupational rehabilitation program. Methods A cohort study was conducted. Descriptive variables included demographic and occupational factors as well as patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs, ie, the Fatigue Severity Scale [FSS], the Post-COVID Functional Scale [PCFS], the 36-item Short Form Health Survey [SF-36], the Pain Disability Index [PDI], the pain Visual Analogue Scale [VAS], the 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire [PHQ-9], the 7-item Generalized Anxiety Disorder Questionnaire [GAD-7], and the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders Fifth Edition [DSM-5] posttraumatic stress disorder [PTSD] checklist [PCL-5]). The main outcome variable was the RTW status at discharge. Descriptive statistics were calculated. Logistic regression examined predictors of RTW. Results The sample consisted of 81 workers. Most workers were female (n=52, 64%) and from health-related occupations (n=43, 53%). Only 43 (53%) individuals returned to work at program discharge, with 40 (93%) of these returning to modified duties. Although there were statistically significant improvements on the pain VAS (mean 11.1, SD 25.6, t31=2.5, P=.02), the PDI (mean 9.4, SD 12.5, t32=4.3, P<.001), the FSS (mean 3.9, SD 8.7, t38=2.8, P=.01), the SF-36 PCS (mean 4.8, SD 8.7, t38=–3.5, P=.001), the PHQ-9 (mean 3.7, SD 4.0, t31=5.2, P<.001), and the GAD-7 (mean 1.8, SD 4.4, t22=1.8, P=.03), there were no significant improvements in the PCFS, the overall mental component score (MCS) of the SF-36, or on the PCL-5. The availability of modified duties (odds ratio [OR] 3.38, 95% CI 1.26-9.10) and shorter time between infection and admission for rehabilitation (OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.99-1.00) predicted RTW even when controlling for age and gender. Conclusions Workers undergoing LC rehabilitation reported significant but modest improvements on a variety of PROMs, but only 43 (53%) returned to work. Outcomes would likely improve with increased availability of modified duties and timelier rehabilitation. Additional research is needed, including larger observational cohorts as well as randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effectiveness of LC rehabilitation.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".