“We’re drowning and we’re alone”: a qualitative study of the lived experience of people experiencing persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The "long tail" of the COVID-19 pandemic will be reflected in disabling symptoms that persist, fluctuate or recur for extended periods for an estimated 20%-30% of those who had a SARS-CoV-2 infection; development of effective interventions to address these symptoms must account for the realities faced by these patients. We sought to describe the lived experience of patients living with persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms. METHODS: We conducted a qualitative study, using interpretive description, of the lived experiences of adults experiencing persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms. We collected data from in-depth, semistructured virtual focus groups in February and March 2022. We used thematic analysis to analyze the data and met with several participants twice for respondent validation. RESULTS: The study included 41 participants (28 females) from across Canada with a mean age of 47.9 years and mean time since initial SARS-CoV-2 infection of 15.8 months. Four overarching themes were identified: the unique burdens of living with persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms; the complex nature of patient work in managing symptoms and seeking treatment during recovery; erosion of trust in the health care system; and the process of adaptation, which included taking charge and transformed self-identity. INTERPRETATION: Living with persistent post-COVID-19 symptoms within a health care system ill-equipped to provide needed resources profoundly challenges the ability of survivors to restore their well-being. Whereas policy and practice increasingly emphasize the importance of self-management within the context of post-COVID-19 symptoms, new investments that enhance services and support patient capacity are required to promote better outcomes for patients, the health care system and society.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".