Effectiveness of tailored individual follow-up vs. standard one-day group course on health-related quality of life in [LC], 2026, Wilson+

[SNT Gatchaman]

Effectiveness of tailored individual follow-up vs. standard one-day group course on health-related quality of life in patients with post COVID-19 condition: a randomized controlled trial
Wilson, Marte; Michalsen, Henriette; Anke, Audny; Pedersen, Synne G; Espinasse, Marina; Langeland, Nina; Cox, Rebecca J; Aukrust, Pål; Dahl, Tuva B; Sandvig, Axel; Wilhelmsen, Maja

BACKGROUND
Post COVID-19 condition (PCC), is characterized by a wide range of symptoms, including fatigue and cognitive problems. Symptoms may lead to disability in everyday life and reduced health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Evidence for effective rehabilitation strategies for this patient group remains limited.

OBJECTIVE
To examine the effectiveness of tailored individual follow-up compared with a standard one-day group course, both based on cognitive behavioral approach, in patients with PCC 6 months after the intervention.

METHODS
A single-center, parallel-group, superiority randomized controlled trial (1:1) was conducted among outpatients aged 18–65 years with PCC. Patients were randomized to either a rehabilitation program with individual follow-up over 6–8 weeks or a standard one-day multidisciplinary self-management group course. Both groups were introduced to graded activity based on principles from cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT) and were offered the app “My COVID rehabilitation”. The primary outcome was the between-group difference in patient reported HRQoL (EQ-5D-5L-index score) at 6 months. Secondary self-reported outcomes included fatigue measured with the Chalder Fatigue Scale, EQ-VAS, and symptom registration. Neuropsychological function was assessed with objective neuropsychological tests.

RESULTS
60 participants were randomized, the mean age was 46 years (22–66 years), and 43 (72%) were female. Outcome assessments were completed for the primary outcome for 29 participants in each arm. No significant between-group difference was found in the primary outcome (score difference EQ-5D-5L-index =0.07; 95% CI [-0.18,.04]; p = .11). The adjusted linear model confirmed the absence of significant difference between groups. No persistent significant group differences were observed for any secondary outcomes. Both groups showed statistically and clinically significant sustained improvements in fatigue and EQ-VAS, as well as significant reductions in the number of symptoms. Within neuropsychological test, both groups demonstrated significant improvement in episodic memory (RAVLT), and the standard course group additionally showed significant improvement in attention (CPT).

CONCLUSION
Tailored individual follow-up was not more effective than a standard one-day group course in improving HRQoL in PCC, both based on principles of CBT. However, significant improvements in both groups were observed in several secondary outcomes, including some objective neuropsychological tests. Larger studies are needed to confirm these results.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION
https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT06085911, identifier NCT06085911.

Web | DOI | PDF | Frontiers in Rehabilitation Sciences | Open Access

 

[Jonathan Edwards]

Larger studies are needed to confirm these results.

Larger studies might indicate whether these result mean anything useful but it might be better to forget the whole business and focus on simple human support and taking the opportunity to do some research on mechanisms.

 

[Utsikt]

This is about on par for Norway.

Lots of money wasted on a completely useless study because it can’t tell us anything about the effects of the interventions when they don’t have a proper control group to account for natural fluctuations.

Their basis for the CBT is this propaganda piece masquerading as a review.

About PEM:

Symptom worsening after physical or mental exertion, also called post-exertional malaise (PEM) was not examined in our study. There is an ongoing debate about whether individuals with PEM should engage in graded activity interventions (62–65).

They admit to not bothering collecting basic safety data.

Nevertheless, there is support for individually tailored programs, as they account for the complexity of the mechanisms underlying the symptoms. The current study recommended graded activity, where patients received information about pacing to avoid PEM. In the individual follow-up group, patients received tailored guidance, with the type of activity and dosage individually adjusted rather than standardized using fixed incremental steps.

Apparently, they believe that it’s possible to pace while gradually doing more. Maybe they want to eat cake and have it too?

Limitations include the single-center design, lack of blinding of participants and no registration of adherence to the home-based activities in the interventions. There is also an absence of an untreated control group and controls for concomitant care. Together this limits our ability to detect causal inference regarding intervention-specific effects vs. spontaneous recovery. Additionally, the multimodal nature of the interventions precludes identification of specific active components.

As they knew this beforehand, it baffles me that the study was even approved. It provides no useful data, and it only serves to prop up the careers of the researchers and to justify the continued medical abused of patients.

In the present RCT, an intervention with tailored individual follow-up was not more effective than a standard one-day group course in improving HRQoL

This is an outright lie. You just said that you can’t determine causality due to the chosen methodology.

 

[rvallee]

Larger studies are needed to confirm these results

You want larger studies (plural) to confirm... null results? And they obviously know that on a long term basis, most patients slowly improve naturally, though in an erratic way, yet again confirmed, so that any small benefits shown in subjective studies and existing programs are obviously mostly just that. 6 years, on top of 3 decades of the exact same garbage prior to that. What an incredible waste of human lives. And not even a single god is appeased by the industrial scale sacrifices.

The standard for fraud has been met a long time ago. None of this is legitimate or credible, and yet it keeps getting pushed relentlessly, to widespread failure. What the hell is wrong with everyone involved in continuing this madness?