Rehabilitation interventions and outcomes for post-COVID condition: a scoping review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Several rehabilitation interventions have been proposed to support people with post-COVID-19 condition (PCC). However, the full spectrum of these interventions remains unclear, partly due to the complexity of PCC, which encompasses a broad range of symptoms affecting multiple organ systems and health domains. This scoping review aimed to identify the available rehabilitation interventions for PCC and the outcome measures used to evaluate them, to facilitate the development of multifaceted interventions and improve patient care. Methods: Following the Joanna Briggs Institute Framework, we searched CINAHL, EMBASE, MEDLINE, PsychINFO, CENTRAL and Scopus databases from inception to 22 January 2024 for experimental and observational studies investigating rehabilitation interventions for adults with PCC. Interventions and their corresponding outcome measures were synthesised based on targeted outcomes aligned with the most common manifestations of PCC. The quality of intervention reporting was assessed using the Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) checklist. Results: We identified 74 studies; 28 randomised trials (37.8%) and 46 observational and quasi-experimental designs (62.2%). Most interventions consisted of different combinations of education, exercises and therapies to manage dyspnoea, fatigue and psychological symptoms, such as anxiety and depression. Few studies addressed postexertional malaise, cognitive function, memory, balance and coordination. At least half of the included studies required a confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection for participant inclusion. Reporting on adherence rates was limited, and 65% of the studies did not report adverse events. Conclusion: There is a need for more comprehensive and inclusive approaches that address the full spectrum of PCC symptomatology to improve patient care and enhance the reproducibility of future studies.
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 | 0.005 | 0.047 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".