IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/spr/patien/v15y2022i5d10.1007_s40271-022-00579-7.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Long COVID Citizen Scientists: Developing a Needs-Based Research Agenda by Persons Affected by Long COVID

Author

Listed:
  • Sarah Ziegler

    (University of Zurich)

  • Alessia Raineri

    (University of Zurich)

  • Vasileios Nittas

    (University of Zurich)

  • Natalie Rangelov

    (Altea Long COVID Network Association)

  • Fabian Vollrath

    (Altea Long COVID Network Association)

  • Chantal Britt

    (Long Covid Schweiz)

  • Milo A. Puhan

    (University of Zurich)

Abstract

Background Long-term health consequences following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection, referred to as post-COVID-19 condition or Long COVID, are increasing, with population-based prevalence estimates for adults at around 20%. Persons affected by Long COVID report various health problems, yet evidence to guide clinical decision making remains scarce. Objective The present study aimed to identify Long COVID research priorities using a citizen science approach and solely considering the needs of those affected. Methods This citizen science study followed an iterative process of patient needs identification, evaluation and prioritisation. A Long COVID Citizen Science Board (21 persons with Long COVID, and seven with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome) and a Long COVID Working Group (25 persons with Long COVID, four patients with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and one relative) were formed. The study included four activities: three remote meetings and one online survey. First, Board members identified the needs and research questions. Second, Working Group members and persons affected by Long COVID (241 respondents, 85.5% with Long COVID, 14.5% with myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome and 7.1% relatives) evaluated the research questions on a 1–5 Likert scale using an online survey. Then the Board gave feedback on this evaluation. Finally, Board members set the priorities for research through voting and discussion. Results Sixty-eight research questions were generated by the Board and categorised into four research domains (medicine, healthcare services, socioeconomics and burden of disease) and 14 subcategories. Their average importance ratings were moderate to high and varied from 3.41 (standard deviation = 1.16) for sex-specific diagnostics to 4.86 (standard deviation = 0.41) for medical questions on treatment. Five topics were prioritised: “treatment, rehabilitation and chronic care management”, “availability of interfaces for treatment continuity”, “availability of healthcare structures”, “awareness and knowledge among professionals” and “prevalence of Long COVID in children and adolescents”. Conclusions To our knowledge, this is the first study developing a citizen-driven, explicitly patient-centred research agenda with persons affected by Long COVID, setting it apart from existing multi-stakeholder efforts. The identified priorities could guide future research and funding allocation. Our methodology establishes a framework for citizen-driven research agendas, suitable for transfer to other diseases.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarah Ziegler & Alessia Raineri & Vasileios Nittas & Natalie Rangelov & Fabian Vollrath & Chantal Britt & Milo A. Puhan, 2022. "Long COVID Citizen Scientists: Developing a Needs-Based Research Agenda by Persons Affected by Long COVID," The Patient: Patient-Centered Outcomes Research, Springer;International Academy of Health Preference Research, vol. 15(5), pages 565-576, September.
  • Handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00579-7
    DOI: 10.1007/s40271-022-00579-7
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://link.springer.com/10.1007/s40271-022-00579-7
    File Function: Abstract
    Download Restriction: Access to the full text of the articles in this series is restricted.

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1007/s40271-022-00579-7?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:spr:patien:v:15:y:2022:i:5:d:10.1007_s40271-022-00579-7. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Sonal Shukla or Springer Nature Abstracting and Indexing (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.springer.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.