OTCohortJournal of rehabilitation medicine2024

Exploring the impact of cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, and shortness of breath on activities of daily life after COVID-19 infection, until 1-year follow-up.

Ann Björkdahl, Marie Gustafsson, Hilda Öhlén and 2 others

PMID 38915292

WHAT IT FOUND

At 12 months, participants still reported fatigue, cognitive problems, or breathlessness limiting daily activities.

Hospital patients scored worse on tests. Primary-care patients reported more fatigue and cognitive complaints, and 39% had fully returned to work versus 54%.

Key findings

01At 12 months, fatigue scores remained high in all groups, and primary-care patients reported greater fatigue than hospital patients.

02Cognitive complaints persisted: 84% of primary-care and 60% of hospital patients reported cognitive problems at 12 months.

03More than 60% of participants experienced moderate to extensive limits in household activities, leisure, and work at 3 months, and these persisted at 12 months.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for OTs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The hospital and primary-care groups were not directly comparable because time from infection to first assessment differed, and the groups also differed in age, sex, and education. The primary-care group with prior hospital stay had only 13 participants, so it was described but not included in group comparisons. Fatigue and cognitive complaints were partly based on interviews, and the interview method may have made fatigue more likely to be reported. Cognition was screened with the MoCA and Trail Making Test, not a full neuropsychological battery, so the tests could not fully describe each person's daily cognitive capacity. Group affiliation could be known during interviews and assessments, which might have influenced activity ratings, although the authors thought this was unlikely. The paper describes symptoms and assessments, not a tested intervention.

Declared interests

The authors declared no conflicts of interest. The study was funded by regional research funding grants for the region of Västra Götaland.

The easy way to misread this

Do not read the higher symptom reports in primary care as proof that milder acute infection caused more disability. The groups were not directly comparable because time from infection to assessment, age, sex, and education differed, and hospital patients performed worse on cognitive tests.

Read it on PubMed →