Healthcare Situation of 3,345 Long COVID Patients in Germany: Results of a Nationwide Survey, 2025, Gloeckl et al.

[SNT Gatchaman]

Healthcare Situation of 3,345 Long COVID Patients in Germany: Results of a Nationwide Survey

Spoiler: Authors

Rainer Gloeckl; Roland Rischer; Tessa Schneeberger; Inga Jarosch; Christine Blome; Rembert Koczulla

Article in German

BACKGROUND
Long COVID includes persistent symptoms after SARS CoV 2 infection and leads to multiple physical and psychosocial burdens.

METHODS
Between March and April 2025, a nationwide sample of long COVID patients was recruited by means of an anonymous online survey. Demographic parameters, symptoms, use of outpatient/inpatient care services and subjective satisfaction with care were recorded.

RESULTS
In total, 3345 people (average age 49 ± 13 years; 81.5% women) completed the survey. 83.8% reported a medically confirmed long COVID diagnosis, with a further 12.2% reporting a post-vac syndrome. The average duration of symptoms was 2.8 ± 1.1 years, with only 36.4% reporting an improvement in their symptoms over time. Almost nine out of ten patients (89.1%) were on long-term sick leave (average 1.8 ± 1.3 years), 70.8% reported total or partial incapacity for work and 46.4% applied for a pension. General practitioner care was the first point of contact for 75.7%. Over the course of the illness, 93% consulted more than three and 21.5% more than ten different doctors. Personal financial contributions were high: 41.4% invested more than € 1,000 and 11.3% more than € 10,000 in diagnostics or therapy. 60% received a rehabilitation intervention. Overall, 97.2% rated their care as “poor” or “very poor”.

CONCLUSION
This survey highlights a high and persistent burden among long COVID patients, as well as significant socioeconomic consequences, accompanied by a predominantly negative evaluation of the current care situation. Improvements require structured, easily accessible, and cross-sectoral services. Improving the primary care system, establishing clear referral pathways, and (where clinically indicated) integrating rehabilitative interventions into an interdisciplinary care concept could help to improve the care situation of patients with long COVID.

Web | PDF | Pneumologie | Open Access

 

[Utsikt]

CONCLUSION
This survey highlights a high and persistent burden among long COVID patients, as well as significant socioeconomic consequences, accompanied by a predominantly negative evaluation of the current care situation.

It’s not representative enough to draw any firm conclusion about LC patients in general, but it’s clear that a not insignificant amount of patients are suffering.

Improvements require structured, easily accessible, and cross-sectoral services.

All right so far.

Improving the primary care system,

Or maybe establishing proper specialist services tied to research capacity to try to get to the bottom of this mess?

establishing clear referral pathways,

Sure.

and (where clinically indicated) integrating rehabilitative interventions

Why single out rehab of all things?

into an interdisciplinary care concept could help to improve the care situation of patients with long COVID.

We can probably leave out a few of the disciplines that tend to act based on their beliefs and not science..

 

[rvallee]

accompanied by a predominantly negative evaluation of the current care situation

Overall, 97.2% rated their care as “poor” or “very poor”.

That could have said almost universally. This is basically as poor an evaluation as anything can do, since in most realistic scenarios it's almost impossible to do this poorly when professionals are involved. Professionals learn and adapt, do not continue doing things that don't work. Not here, though. Here it's like a law of the universe.

Who knew abandoning sick people made them suffer more? Not the medical profession or health care systems. Somehow.

Over the course of the illness, 93% consulted more than three and 21.5% more than ten different doctors.

Also it would be great if the absurd trope that this is worth doing for the cost savings could stop. This is literally the most expensive option. It's literally more expensive and worse for every person, institution and community involved. The suffering is amplified. The costs are amplified. Literally the worst possible set of choices made along the way.

Ah, but somehow they don't even understand what they're hearing.

60% received a rehabilitation intervention. Overall, 97.2% rated their care as “poor” or “very poor”.

Improving the primary care system, establishing clear referral pathways, and (where clinically indicated) integrating rehabilitative interventions into an interdisciplinary care concept could help to improve the care situation of patients with long COVID.

Over half got the rehabilitation crap and 97% rate overall care as poor, and somehow they think we should have more of that. Good grief, there is literally no amount of data that will convince the medical profession that their freaking pet ideology / industrial-scale trash chute is an ideological and professional disaster.