Developing services for long COVID: lessons from a study of wounded healers

  1. Emma Ladds
  2. Alex Rushforth
  3. Sietse Wieringa
  4. Sharon Taylor
  5. Clare Rayner
  6. Laiba Husain
  7. Trisha Greenhalgh

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

No abstract available

Article activity feed

  1. Version published to 10.7861/clinmed.2020-0962
  2. ScreenIT

    SciScore for 10.1101/2020.11.13.20231555: (What is this?)

    Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

    Table 1: Rigor

    Institutional Review Board StatementIRB: 10 The study was conducted between May and September 2020 and received ethical approval from the East Midlands – Leicester Central Research Ethics Committee (IRAS Project ID: 283196; REC ref 20/EM0128).
    Randomizationnot detected.
    Blindingnot detected.
    Power Analysisnot detected.
    Sex as a biological variablenot detected.

    Table 2: Resources

    Software and Algorithms
    SentencesResources
    Audio and video recordings and contemporaneous notes were transcribed in full, deidentified and entered onto NVIVO software version 12.
    NVIVO
    suggested: (NVivo, RRID:SCR_014802)

    Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

    Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:
    Strengths and limitations of the study: To our knowledge, this is the largest and most in-depth qualitative study of healthcare workers with long Covid published in the academic literature with a focus on the under-researched majority who were never hospitalized. However, the population sample was drawn exclusively from the UK and may have inadequately captured the perspectives of ethnic minority groups. Further strengths and limitations are discussed elsewhere.10 Comparison with previous empirical studies: Our findings affirm the experience of healthcare professionals with long Covid published in narrative reviews,20 commentaries,21 and manifestos.9 Like our own dataset, these emphasise the disorienting uncertainties of this new illness; the stigma of not being believed; frustration of scientific and medical ignorance; and problems accessing services. ‘Wounded healers’ are extensively represented throughout the illness experience literature. Our population did not reflect the ethos of invulnerability reported in other narrative accounts,22 however the challenges of the patient role, importance of therapeutic relationships and compassionate care, inhumanity of ‘the system’ and use of professional status to manipulate it, workforce culture and guilt that promote return to work, and impact on professional understanding and practice all emerged here.23 Interestingly, as with long Covid, many wounded healers describe their experiences in non-academic forums such as blogs, memoirs...

    Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

    Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

    Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

    Results from rtransparent:
    • Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
    • No protocol registration statement was detected.

    About SciScore

    SciScore is an automated tool that is designed to assist expert reviewers by finding and presenting formulaic information scattered throughout a paper in a standard, easy to digest format. SciScore checks for the presence and correctness of RRIDs (research resource identifiers), and for rigor criteria such as sex and investigator blinding. For details on the theoretical underpinning of rigor criteria and the tools shown here, including references cited, please follow this link.

  3. Version published to 10.1101/2020.11.13.20231555v1 on medRxiv