Protocol Fatigue and Mental Illness Symptoms in Long COVID: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Multicenter Observational Study, 2024, Pires et al

Fatigue and Mental Illness Symptoms in Long COVID: Protocol for a Prospective Cohort Multicenter Observational Study

Background
The aftermath of the COVID-19 pandemic continues to affect millions worldwide, resulting in persisting postvirus complaints and impacting peoples’ quality of life. Long COVID, characterized by lingering symptoms like fatigue and mental illness, can extend beyond a few months, necessitating further research to understand its implications.

Objectives
This study aims to quantify the degree of physical and psychological fatigue in patients following COVID-19 infection and examine its correlation with mental health disorders.

Methods
Using a consecutive nonrandom sampling technique, we will conduct a prospective cohort multicenter observational study in 5 Portuguese hospitals. Symptomatic adult patients with previous COVID-19 attending follow-up consultations will be enrolled. We will include patients who had mild, moderate, and severe acute disease. We will assess clinical outcomes related to COVID-19, including the type of respiratory support such as high-flow nasal cannula, noninvasive ventilation, and invasive mechanical ventilation. The exclusion criteria will include previous severe psychiatric disorders confirmed by a psychiatrist; refusal or inability to respond to the questionnaire; concomitant neurological disorder; persistent fatigue symptoms during the 6 months before infection; and the need for invasive mechanical ventilation during COVID-19 infection due to a high prevalence of postintensive care syndrome. Our primary outcome is the prevalence of fatigue in patients with post–COVID-19 depression and/or anxiety, as measured by the Chalder Fatigue Scale (CFQ-11) and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS). The secondary outcomes will include an assessment of health-related quality of life via the EQ-5D questionnaire and an exploration of the prevalence of symptoms of posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) using the 14-item Posttraumatic Stress Scale (PTSS-14). We will also examine the association between mental health symptoms and the severity of acute COVID-19. The post–COVID-19 data will be collected at least 6 months after the positive test and no longer than 9 months during the clinical appointment.

Results
We expect our multicenter study on patients post COVID-19 to reveal a significant link between mental illness symptoms and both physical and psychological fatigue. Patients with heightened depression and anxiety may report increased levels of fatigue. Additionally, we expect to find persistent PTSD symptoms in a subset of participants, indicating the enduring psychological impact of the virus.

Conclusions
This study may underscore the need for integrated care addressing physical and mental health in patients post COVID-19. The observed connections emphasize the importance of considering mental well-being for long-term health outcomes. Despite study limitations, our findings contribute valuable insights for future treatment strategies and highlight the necessity for comprehensive mental health support in post–COVID-19 care. This research provides valuable insights into the mental health implications of COVID-19 and its impact on post–COVID-19 fatigue and the overall well-being of affected individuals. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05323318; https://clinicaltrials.gov/study/NCT05323318

Link | PDF (JMIR Research Protocols)

 

It sounds as if they've already decided on the results and written the paper...

 

While mental illness is a physical illness, mental illness and mental health issues are two different things completely.

 

Old wine in the same old recycled bottles.

Frankly these people could go so much faster at it if they just skipped the whole pretending-to-study and just publish their conclusions straight away. It's not as if their pretending-to-study adds anything to the process.

 

But with each "research" iteration they can then write in their subsequent meta-analyses:

 

This seems pointless on multiple levels.

 

Do they think noone else notices they are using surveys that basically overlap in the majority of their material?

and that would be laughable from a method/magical connection point of view if it wasn't for the fact they were therefore making people who were exhausted do however many, probably irrelevant to their real issue, questions twice because they are on both batteries of questions - just so they can pretend they are surprised and 'it must be a finding of the condition' that we got the same answer for the same question that was asked on two questionnaires with different titles?