Effect of a 4-Week Telerehabilitation Program for People With Post-COVID Syndrome on Physical Function and Symptoms: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: COVID-19 has led to significant morbidity and mortality globally. Post-COVID sequelae can persist beyond the acute and subacute phases of infection, often termed post-COVID syndrome (PCS). There is limited evidence on the appropriate rehabilitation for people with PCS. The aim of this study is to evaluate the effect on exercise capacity, symptoms, cognition, anxiety, depression, health-related quality of life, and fatigue of a 4-week, twice-weekly supervised pulmonary telerehabilitation program compared with usual medical care for people with PCS with persistent respiratory symptoms. METHODS: The study will be a multi-site randomized controlled trial with assessor blinding. Participants with confirmed previous COVID-19 infection and persistent respiratory symptoms who attend a post-COVID respiratory clinic will be randomized 1:1 to either an intervention group of 4 weeks, twice-weekly pulmonary telerehabilitation or a control group of usual medical care. Participants in the control group will be invited to cross-over into the intervention group after the week 4 assessment. Primary outcome: exercise capacity measured by the 1-minute sit-to-stand test. Secondary outcomes: 5 repetition sit-to-stand test; Montreal Cognitive Assessment; COVID-19 Yorkshire Rehabilitation Scale; Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Assessment Test; 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey; Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale; Fatigue Severity Scale; and the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale. Outcomes will be collected at baseline, after 4-weeks intervention or control period, after intervention in the cross-over group, and at 12-month follow-up. IMPACT: Research into effective rehabilitation programs is crucial given the substantial morbidity associated with PCS and the lack of long-term data for COVID-19 recovery. A short-duration pulmonary telerehabilitation program, if effective compared with usual care, could inform practice guidelines and direct future clinical trials for the benefit of individuals with persistent respiratory symptoms post-COVID.
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 | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.006 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.015 | 0.008 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.009 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.061 | 0.009 |
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".