Chronic stress and post-traumatic stress in long COVID: a comparative survey study, 2025, Oehlke et al

Chronic stress and post-traumatic stress in long COVID: a comparative survey study

Sofia-Marie Oehlke, Annika Lozar, Andreas Goreis, Diana Klinger, Paul L. Plener & Oswald D. Kothgassner

Published: 5 March 2025

Abstract
Long COVID (LC) is a prevalent condition among SARS-CoV-2 infections. Yet, in-depth research on adverse stress responses in LC remains limited.

The primary aim of this study was to investigate chronic stress and post-traumatic stress due to the COVID-19 pandemic specifically experienced in LC, as both have been suggested to interplay with the manifestation of LC.

Using data from N=549 participants in an online survey (nfemale=349, nmale=199, ndiverse=1; age: M=39.24, SD=16.58), we compared three subgroups regarding chronic stress and COVID-19-related traumatic stress as primary outcomes, and psychological distress as secondary outcome: 1) participants with LC (n=283), 2) participants with past COVID-19 without LC (n=102), and 3) participants without past COVID-19 (n=164). In addition, we fitted a binary logistic regression model to examine factors associated with LC.

Participants with LC reported elevated levels across all outcomes compared to the other subgroups (d=0.57-1.24, p < .001-.008), which did not significantly differ from each other. Female gender (OR: 7.772, p < .001) and symptomatic acute COVID-19 emerged as risk factors for LC (OR: 2.776-7.951, p < .001-.036), while a completed primary COVID-19 vaccination series acted as a protective factor for LC (OR: 0.481, p < .025). The duration of LC symptoms revealed no significant association with the outcomes examined.

Our findings contribute to a better understanding of factors influencing health in LC, notably identifying an increased susceptibility to chronic stress and COVID-19-related traumatic stress within LC. Future treatment approaches are encouraged to include psychological interventions with stress and trauma focused elements.

Link | PDF (Current Psychology) [Open Access]

 

• No mention of PEM.
• Some mentions of somatization and allostasis.
• Mistaking correlation for causation.

 

And it remains so. Because this is not something that can be studied this way. It's far too generic a concept, everyone interprets it differently, especially whatever awful questions are used to assess it, and interpretation is extremely biased. Research like this needs to be stopped entirely, it simply contributes nothing at all. I don't understand why anyone wants to be associated with nonsense like this, it completely cheapens the entire health care industry as a chaotic mix of science and quackery.