The impact of Post-COVID-Syndrome on functioning – results from a community survey..., 2021, Lemhöfer et al

[Andy]

Full title: The impact of Post-COVID-Syndrome on functioning – results from a community survey in patients after mild and moderate SARS-CoV-2-infections in Germany

Abstract

Background
In COVID-19 survivors a relatively high number of long-term symptoms have been observed. Besides impact on quality of life, these symptoms (now called Post-COVID-Syndrome) may have an impact on functioning and may also hinder to participation in social life in affected people. However, little is known about developing such syndrome a for patients with mild and moderate COVID-19 who did not need hospitalization or intensive care.

Methods
A cross-sectional study in 1027 patients with mild or moderate COVID-19 was performed in two communities in Bavaria, Germany. The Rehabilitation-Needs-Survey (RehabNeS) including the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) on health-related quality of life, was used. Descriptive statistics were calculated.

Results
In all, 97.5% of patients reported one symptom in the infection stage, such as fatigue, respiratory problems, limitations of the senses of taste and smell, fear and anxiety and other symptoms. In this time period, 84.1% of the participants experienced activity limitations and participation restrictions such as carrying out daily routines, handling stress, getting household tasks done, caring for/supporting others, and relaxing and leisure concerns.

In all, 61.9% of participants reported persisting symptoms more than 3 months after infection. These were fatigue, sleep disturbances, respiratory problems, pain, fear and anxiety, and restrictions in movement; 49% of the participants reported activity limitations and participation restrictions. Predominately, these were handling stress, carrying out daily routines, looking after one’s health, relaxing and leisure activities and doing house work.

The impacts on quality of life and vocational performance were rather low.

Conclusion
The results show that long-term symptoms after mild and moderate COVID-19 are common and lead to limitations of activities and participation. However, it seems that in most cases they are not severe and do not lead to frequent or serious issues with quality of life or work ability.

Open access, https://occup-med.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12995-021-00337-9

 

[Hutan]

For this cross-sectional study, a new written survey instrument was developed in cooperation be-tween the University Hospital Jena (Institute for Physiotherapy), the Hannover Medical School (Department of Rehabilitation Medicine) and the last author in her work for the Association of Statutory Health Insurance Physicians of Bavaria; a new written survey instrument was developed in early summer 2020. The Rehabilitation-Needs-Survey (RehabNeS) includes the established Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) on health-related QoL and the newly created Rehabilitation-Needs-Questionnaire (RehabNeQ) with eleven dimensions and a total of 57 items that evaluates the rehabilitation needs of COVID-19 sufferers and additionally asks about satisfaction with the actors of the health care system and treatment in the context of infection [17].

So, done by someone working for a Health Insurer. And the conclusions are that Covid-19 does not lead to frequent or severe issues in most cases. Fear and anxiety and handling stress are mentioned. Never mind that 49% of people reported these issues at 3 months:

handling stress, carrying out daily routines, looking after one’s health, relaxing and leisure activities and doing house work

Because apparently

The impacts on quality of life and vocational performance were rather low.

 

[Hutan]

Patients under 18 years of age, as well as residents of dementia homes, were excluded. A number of 1001 persons remained for whom the health departments requested the questionnaires. The study centre then sent the prepared envelopes containing the questionnaires to them. The local staff addressed and mailed the envelopes. There was no transmission of personal data to the study centre. In addition, 26 patients who had previously been in the direct care of the first author but lived in a different district were also involved and obtained the corresponding questionnaire with an anonymous return envelope. Patients did not receive a reminder letter.

Patient selection: over 18 years, and not living in a dementia home; able to respond to a mailed questionnaire. It looks like the selection was something like all suitable patients during a period in a district (1001 people) except for the inclusion of 26 patients previously under the care of the first author and living in a different district.

So, 1027 patients received the survey. 422 questionnaires returned, which seems a pretty high return rate for a mailed survey with no reminder. 54 were excluded, some for reasons which seem a bit odd. 5 were rejected because they were under 18 - it's surprising these people were sent a survey in the first place. 21 were excluded due to evaluation of SF_36 not being possible, and another 12 were excluded due to too much missing data or being incomplete. 2 were excluded due to 'no COVID-19 disease as cause of complaints'. 11 weren't deliverable by post (perhaps a bias? severely affected people living on their own might move to be taken care of by parents or adult children).

365 surveys were evaluated.

 

[Trish]

A mailed questionnaire with only about 1/3 returned and able to be included is no way to do an epidemiological study.