Preprint Reclaiming health: a qualitative, explorative study of long covid recovery journeys involving mind-body approaches, 2026, Deurman et al

rvallee

Administrator
Staff member
Reclaiming health: a qualitative, explorative study of long covid recovery journeys involving mind-body approaches

Objective
This study explored the recovery experiences of individuals who report having (largely) recovered from long covid and who attributed their improvement to mind-body approaches.

Design, setting and participants
We conducted an explorative qualitative study using purposive recruitment through social media and snowball sampling. Eighteen adult women (aged 37-62 years), who self-identified as having had long covid and having substantially recovered through mind-body approaches participated in semi-structured interviews. Data were analysed using Saunders’ practical thematic analysis.

Results
Despite variation in personal narratives, a common trajectory emerged: participants moved away from a biomedical explanatory model towards one centred on nervous system dysregulation. This shift, sometimes following initial scepticism, was often described as a turning point, sparking hope and motivation to engage in self-directed strategies. Recovery was not linear but an iterative process, involving cycles of practice, reflection (especially when progress stagnated) and adaptation of mind-body techniques. Over time, participants gained insights into contributing factors and, in many cases, made intentional life changes to support ongoing recovery. These patterns echo findings from previous research on mind-body approaches in chronic pain and chronic fatigue, and align with neuroscientific perspectives on symptom generation.

Most participants navigated this process without formal clinical support, relying instead on online communities and actively avoiding sources of (biomedical) information that conflicted with their new understanding.

Conclusions
While causal inferences cannot be drawn from qualitative data, this study highlights potential mechanisms that may underpin recovery for people with long covid using mind-body approaches. Further research is needed to develop structured interventions, and to evaluate their efficacy and safety.

Future research should also explore how prevailing narratives within healthcare and society influence treatment engagement and recovery trajectories.
 
This study was part of a citizen science and public-private partnership program that was funded by funded by ZonMW Health Holland
The IRB of the Leiden University Medical Center (LUMC) waived ethical approval for this work, LUMC ID 22-3030.
Hesitated to post it because it's basically rage bait, but this is the direction medicine is going overall with this stuff, so it's still meaningful.
 
The lead author is a PhD student:
Together with a group of recovered patients we are studying the feasability of and experience with a primary care based treatment program for patients with medically unexplained symptoms and chronic pain. The program is partially group based and partially individual, and based on the treatment principles of Lumley and Schubiner (the mind-body approach and Emotion Awareness and Expression Therapy - EAET).

She has a background from health insurance, among other things (auto translated):
Christine is a Public Health Physician and has worked for the past few years as a medical advisor at the health insurers Eno and DSW, focusing on primary care and prevention. Prior to that, she worked for over ten years in various countries in sub-Saharan Africa, on projects ranging from emergency aid to policy support for quality improvement projects.
 
I think it’s quite telling when academia decides to summarise as gospel the stories that are used for advertising by corporate wellness influencers without any distance.

The worst part is that these people probably would see this thread and just call us “bitter” because we’re “jealous” or some pseudo-psychological patient blaming.

The lead author is a PhD student:


She has a background from health insurance, among other things (auto translated):

I guess we can be pretty certain who these narratives benefit. And it ain’t us.
 
Advertising. The lead author declares a conflict of interest.
It’s worse than I thought:
Christine Deurman has developed an accredited online webinar about the role of neuroplasticity in the construction of physical sensations and symptoms. Although these seminars on neuroplasticity relate to this topic, the potential conflict was disclosed to the full research team, who jointly oversaw study design, analysis, and interpretation to prevent individual influence. Other authors have no competing interests declared.
 
During the Long-Covid Day organized by Stichting Long-Covid and C-support there was a poster presentation by Christine Deurman.

I wrote this one LinkedIn in Dutch. Text Google translated:

It is extremely concerning to see that during Long‑Covid Day there is a poster presentation by Emovere and mind‑body work. On top of that, there are other presentations with similarly questionable approaches. A day that in previous years had a strong biomedical focus is now sliding toward slowly introducing BPS and gaslighting patients, something people with PAIS have been plagued by for decades.

We have seen this pattern before with other PAIS. At first there is a solid biomedical approach, but when answers do not come immediately, things slowly shift further and further into BPS quicksand. In the end it becomes clear that this has been a waste of time and funding.

We know that behavioural interventions do not lead to (lasting) objective improvement. Whether it is CBT/GET or more mind‑body work. If improvement is seen, it is very likely due to other factors. Learn from this history!!!



We also often see that people were already improving for other reasons, which makes exposure and graded activity less of a problem, and then a mind‑body intervention is presented as the sole cause of that improvement.

Claiming that this improvement comes from mind‑body work based on thinking differently about the cause of symptoms (so not purely biomedical) and graded activity is misleading and harmful to patients. Both for people who still want to try it and for the many who already tried it and are left feeling they did it wrong.

Focusing only on people who recover is also misleading, because many have tried these approaches and did not improve or even got worse. And this has been the case for decades. We learn very little from looking only at those who recovered.

I am not saying that some aspects of mind‑body work cannot be supportive. Especially for people who need (additional) emotional support. But distorting someone’s reality of the disease and pushing them to do more when they have PEM and are not improving can have far‑reaching harmful consequences. There are better forms of psychosocial support that are not harmful. Why are those not given a platform during Long‑Covid Day?


We also know that this kind of mind‑body work has been hindering progress in biomedical research in Scandinavia for years, as well as hindering good psychosocial support. Surely we do not want that in the Netherlands as well.

I truly do not understand why this kind of quackery based on survivorship bias is being given a platform during Long‑Covid Day. A very sad, worrying and above all disappointing development.


LongCovid #pwme #millionsmissing C-support Stichting Long COVID Christine Deurman
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20260423-155246.png
    Screenshot_20260423-155246.png
    981.5 KB · Views: 2
Back
Top Bottom