A service evaluation of ... psychoeducation and mind-body complementary approaches to support those with long covid in the UK, 2022, Brough et al

[Andy]

Full title: A service evaluation of a community project combining psychoeducation and mind-body complementary approaches to support those with long covid in the UK

Abstract

Introduction
Post covid-19 syndrome or Long Covid has been estimated to impact 1.3 million individuals in the UK. This study evaluates the outcomes of delivering a complementary Long Covid support service using psycho-educational and mind-body approaches within a community setting.

Methods
This study utilised quantitative methods to evaluate the outcomes of implementing a complementary approach to providing Long Covid support. The service offered a package of care including group sessions combining psychoeducation and mind-body complementary approaches and optional 1:2:1 sessions (physiotherapy and craniosacral therapy (CST)). Screening for the service and health information was obtained using the Covid-19-Yorkshire Rehabilitation Screening tool (C-19 YRS). The impact of the service was assessed using the patient reported outcome measure: Warwick Holistic Health Questionnaire (WHHQ-18), and a survey was designed for general evaluation and feedback about the service from participants.

Results
25 participants engaged with the service. The C-19YRS proved to be a useful tool to screen service users. The WHHQ-18 highlighted a positive group change (n = 16) in participants’ mental, physical, emotional, and spiritual wellbeing: mean group score at the start = 33.7 (SD=12.5), mean group score at the follow up = 39.5 (SD=10.8). In the feedback from the service evaluation, participants reported that the service was useful in supporting them with their health challenges resulting from Long Covid and was delivered to the standard expected.

Conclusion
In conclusion the psycho-educational and mind-body complementary approaches used within this service were well received and the measures used to evaluate were suitable for a service delivered within a community setting.

Open access, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187638202200083X

 

[NelliePledge]

Service evaluation or study?

very small numbers

High percentage opted out

Insignificant

 

[chrisb]

and here is the webpage for Torus Wellbeing Clinic which seems to be the workplace for Brough and Abel.Torus Wellbeing Clinic - About Us - Tel: 01782 273314.
Little more need be said.

 

[rvallee]

This seems to be the 11 question version of the WHHQ and honestly shame on anyone who pretends this is a legitimate assessment for anything. The need to make irrelevant evaluations says everything about the uselessness of this entire paradigm. Nothing that actually works has to make a definition of useful that essentially amounts to nothing.

And also the woo index of this thing is so high that only people who see woo favorably would participate. The 18 question version is on this paper and it's just as wooish: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1876382021000937.

In the feedback from the service evaluation, participants reported that the service was useful in supporting them with their health challenges resulting from Long Covid and was delivered to the standard expected.

The feedback, which is very vague and does not support the assertion above outside of the most possibly vague definition of useful:

In response to Q1: “What new skills have you learnt?”

“It has been useful to learn new techniques and be reminded of previous knowledge, bringing it to the forefront to be applied. It has also been helpful to learn about things that have helped others in the group.” - PPT6



In response to Q4: ‘What have you enjoyed most about the programme?’

“I have enjoyed all sessions, as they have allowed me time to focus on my own wellbeing. The Qi Gong was something new for me, and was useful, as it gave me hope about doing exercise to improve fitness.” - PPT6

“Qi-gong meditation activities and being with others in a similar situation.” - PPT1

There are a few more comments and frankly they are all on the theme of finding it nice to socialize with other people living the same thing or the potential, the hope, that it could help. They simply do not support the assertion that this is useful, this is the authors writing this for themselves.

Only half completed, although it's not as if it would make any difference:

N = 10 registered and n = 8 participants attended the 6-week programme, of which n = 5 completed the programme.

 

[NelliePledge]

It’s an advert for a private alternative therapy provider then.I was wondering how cranial sacral was being provided through an nhs service.

in fact there are no NHS services for MECFS in Staffordshire