Course of neuropsychological health in post-COVID patients differs 6 and 12 months after inpatient rehabilitation, 2025, Müller et al

[forestglip]

Course of neuropsychological health in post-COVID patients differs 6 and 12 months after inpatient rehabilitation

Katrin Müller, Iris Poppele, Marcel Ottiger, Rainer-Christian Weber, Michael Stegbauer, Torsten Schlesinger

Background
Rehabilitation is an effective and feasible approach for post-COVID patients to improve mental health and cognitive complaints. However, knowledge regarding the long-term impact of rehabilitation on neuropsychological health of these patients is lacking.

Objective
This study aims to investigate psychological health, fatigue, and cognitive function 6 and 12 months after inpatient post-COVID rehabilitation of patients, who acquired COVID-19 in the workplace. In addition, group differences in these outcome parameters according to sex, age, acute COVID status, socioeconomic status, profession, and pre-existing diseases will be detected.

Methods
This longitudinal observational study examined the changes in mental and cognitive health of 127 patients with COVID-19 as an occupational disease or work accident. Symptoms of depression and anxiety, fatigue severity, somatic symptom severity, trauma-related symptoms, and cognitive functioning were assessed at the beginning as well as six and 12 months after rehabilitation. Group differences concerning sex, age, acute COVID status, socioeconomic status, occupational status, and existing diseases prior to COVID-19 were also analyzed.

Results
The results showed that the improvements direct after rehabilitation in mental health and fatigue severity could not be maintained six and 12 months after rehabilitation discharge. Contrary, patients’ cognitive function maintained stable during follow-up. Significant group differences were observed regarding age, sex, acute COVID status, socioeconomic status, occupational status, and pre-existing diseases.

Conclusion
This study highlights the importance of the aftercare process and the implementation of adequate and individualized therapeutic interventions such as psychological support and strengthen self-management skills.

The study is registered in the German Clinical Trials Register with the identifier DRKS00022928.

Link | PDF (Frontiers in Psychiatry) [Open Access]

 

[Utsikt]

Rehabilitation is an effective and feasible approach for post-COVID patients to improve mental health and cognitive complaints.

No, that has not been proven at all.

The results showed that the improvements direct after rehabilitation in mental health and fatigue severity could not be maintained six and 12 months after rehabilitation discharge.

Case in point!

2.1 Study design and participants
The longitudinal study design consists of four distinct measurement points at home as well as during the clinical stay: the beginning (T1) and end (T2) of the inpatient rehabilitation period, as well as 6 months (T3) and 12 months (T4) after the end of rehabilitation.

They put the graphs in the supplementary files. The short of it is that T1 and T3 are pretty identical. Here’s the first one:

 

[rvallee]

The conclusion is so bizarre. Even the framing of aftercare makes no sense in the context of LC. There is no such care! Hence why they want rehabilitation to be the answer, but it never is, it fundamentally misunderstands the problem as being over, when it's obviously not. Neither does a course of neuropsychological health, whatever that even means. It has nothing to do at all with the problem. Literally nothing. Might as well be giving cooking classes. Hell, that'd probably end up being more useful, at least a few people would gain something out of it.

Plus they're assessing it all wrong. HADS-D has nothing to do with brain fog, which is likely what they mean. Nothing at all. The layers of absurdity that medicine has painted over 5 years have long stretched credibility. Not credulity, credibility. They keep trying the same stuff over and over again, never actually changing anything. They may as well be teaching new languages for the same problem, this could get them easily 100 trials trying each and every language out there. Why not? Because, really, given the complete lack of any progress, why the hell not at this point? Why not teach horse-riding or just go out and camp in the woods. It's all random nonsense.

Fundamentally the problem is really that they just don't understand the problems. So they redefine them according to who knows what, trying things that could make minimal sense if the problem was actually as they think it is, but it literally never is.

And when you look at studies that try to define the problem, it comes out even worse. So of course 5 years of LC and decades of the same problems before that, they still have nothing. Because they don't have a clue how to work out problems. Literally. It's all just trial and error to get the first step, the the real work begins. But getting the first step here is likely the most maddeningly inefficient process in the world, it flat out fails in process, outcome, and even intent. Because intending to 'rehabilitate' people from LC at this point is basically just delusional.

 

[NelliePledge]

Gosh what a revelation
- not