Persistent obstacles for return to work after COVID-19 infection - an explorative follow-up study in Sweden.
Hilda Öhlén, Iolanda Santos Tavares Silva, Marie Gustafsson and 2 others
PMID 41050314WHAT IT FOUND
Most patients with post-COVID symptoms returned to work within a year, but often in an adapted way.
Women were 3.5 times more likely than men to remain unable to work. Persistent fatigue and cognitive issues were the main barriers, requiring workplace flexibility.
Key findings
01About 20% of participants in both hospitalised and primary care groups were still unable to return to work one year after infection.
02Women were 3.5 times more likely than men to remain unable to work one year after being diagnosed with persistent post-COVID symptoms.
03Many participants returned to full-time work but required adaptations such as working from home, more breaks, and acceptance of slower performance due to fatigue and cognitive dysfunction.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for OTsWhat it means for SLPs
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.
What it does not show
The study was explorative with a relatively small sample size (n=104), which limits the generalisability of the findings. The hospitalised and primary care groups were not directly comparable due to different recruitment criteria and timelines; the primary care group was a selected subset seeking rehabilitation for persistent problems. The number of participants in the service sector and those infected during the third pandemic wave was very low, making it difficult to draw conclusions about these specific subgroups. Information regarding the specific rehabilitation interventions received by participants during the year was not collected, so the impact of treatment on RTW cannot be determined.
Declared interests
The study was funded by regional research funding grants in Västra Götaland and the local R&D council in Gothenburg. The authors declared no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not interpret the high rates of return to work as a full recovery. Many patients returned to work only with significant adaptations and reduced capacity. The lack of difference in overall return rates between hospitalised and primary care patients does not mean their symptom profiles or needs were identical; hospitalised patients had more physical limitations while primary care patients reported more cognitive and fatigue-related barriers.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →