Patient-led integrated CBT for management of long COVID with comorbid depression and anxiety in primary care - A case study, 2022, Skilbeck

Andy

Andy

Retired committee member
Abstract

Objective
Long COVID affects approximately ten-percent of people following post-acute Coronavirus infection. Long COVID is a complex, multisystemic recent illness. Therefore, there are currently no unitary guidelines on its management. The UK national guidelines currently recommended that interventions are guided by objective research evidence and subjective experiences of patients. They also emphasise multidisciplinary/interdisciplinary professional care and patient self-management.

Methods
The current case study applied patient-led integrated cognitive behavioural therapy in a 36-year-old male presenting with long COVID symptoms with comorbid depression and anxiety. It applied integrated interdisciplinary CBT with emphasis on enhancing patient self-management. The patient attended twelve, individual, 60 min video sessions, via Microsoft Teams over a period of five months. The treatment was conducted in collaboration with the patient’s general practitioner, physiotherapists and cardiopulmonary specialists. In line with the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidelines, it applied symptom monitoring, graded pacing and behavioural experiments.

Results
At the end of therapy, the patient showed reliable change in his somatic symptoms, depression and anxiety symptoms. He also showed improved quality of life.

Discussion
This case illustrates the effective use of patient-led CBT for managing symptoms of long COVID with comorbid depression and anxiety in primary care.

Paywall, https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/17423953221113605
 
There have been literally hundreds of trials of this already, probably amounting to over $100M in research alone, not even counting how much has been wasted on those services, it probably exceeds $1B by now. It's been officially, and at times coercively, pushed onto hundreds of thousands by now. There is no way this person doesn't know this.

And yet this thing which is "proven" and "effective" is still subject to single case studies like this. There are systematic reviews of systematic reviews, because the process is sheer quantity with no quality, there are literally too many to compare.

No one tests things that work this way, only things that don't. It's so infuriating to see how everyone is fully aware that this is all a bunch of nonsense and they just pretend anyway.
 
it goes without saying here, but perhaps the author needs it spelled out - maybe they will find this thread one day
  • n=1 (how many other patients was this treatment applied to who gave up and went away, or stuck with it, but didn't improve before the researchers found this one 36 year-old man?)
  • natural recovery - as in, a result of improvement is totally what would be expected, with or without treatment, over a period of 5 months in a person who has only been sick for a year or so. (The abstract didn't really need to get across much in the way of information, but surely how long the person has had symptoms would make the cut as abstract-worthy? And some sense of what symptoms he was suffering from, as 'Long Covid' could be lots of things.)
  • reliable change?
Abstract said:
At the end of therapy, the patient showed reliable change in his somatic symptoms, depression and anxiety symptoms. He also showed improved quality of life.
Click to expand...
Is this the sort of reliable change of the 'trust us, we just know' variety, or of the 'we've worked really hard for you over these 5 months and you should feel grateful, so are you feeling a little better or a lot better?' variety. The abstract gives no evidence of any objective measures, which is what would be needed to qualify as reliable change in this case.​

This abstract is laughable, and certainly is not science or evidence.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom