Psychosomatic Rehabilitation for Post-COVID 2024 Kobelt-Pönicke et al

Abstract

Aim of the study
Post-COVID is characterized by a large number of different symptoms. The indication for medical rehabilitation is based on the main symptom. Insured individuals who suffer from fatigue and have no relevant organic disorder are often rehabilitated in psychosomatic clinics. In the present study, the effectiveness of psychosomatic rehabilitation in patients with post-COVID will be investigated.

Methods
91 patients with post-COVID are compared to 124 patients with mental disorders and 68 patients with cancer regarding the improvement of fatigue and depressiveness as well as satisfaction and socio-medical parameters.

Results
At admission, the level of fatigue did not differ in the three groups and was equally reduced. Patients with post-COVID and high depression scores at admission had clinically significant levels of fatigue at discharge. The proportion of patients with mental disorders who were discharged with a negative prognosis for employment was significantly increased.

Discussion
Although psychosomatic rehabilitation can reduce fatigue, the proportion of patients suffering from fatigue with post-COVID at discharge is still high.

Conclusion
The treatment concept for the rehabilitation of patients with post-COVID must take into account the often individual course of the disease. Psychosomatic rehabilitation can make an important contribution here.

Paywall, https://www.thieme-connect.de/products/ejournals/abstract/10.1055/a-2259-9236

 

I think we need to begin to have some good psychologist noting the long term common sense and obvious harms this therapy and assumption causes

it seems they keep getting away with re trying different versions ‘just in case’ even after one has been proven not to work due to some insane pmass delusion/pretence/pretend to turn a blind eye that ‘it’s worth a try and does no harm’ when I can’t think of anything more harmful and see it as akin to throwing people into dystopia and a conversion course to hate their own self - not even ‘just’ their body or maths ability or preferences but something that if they battle against is actually them and is like quicksand where being encouraged to ignore you are in it and keep moving makes you more and more trapped . So it’s not even something they can avoid mentioning or think differently about to escape

sicko stuff when you think of the logic involved with what someone is doing to someone really

it needs to be highlighted as highly likely to be injurious in numerous ways (even if psychosomatic existed), cruel, and with barbaric implications on access to human rights (by noting how the label and treatment removes perceived access to things people need and Maslows hierarchy of human needs inc relationships with others). If these people aren’t aware that’s what they are doing it must be because they are missing a module and choosing not to see and think of the consequences of their actions to a human being

that these things are suggested never with ANY discussion of care or warning of potential harm to those misdiagnosed seems to show an utter callousness as to whether those it is imposed on have psychosomatic at all too. I find it shocking these things aren’t in the courts just because someone can falsely claim the label ‘therapy’ without having to prove it isn’t just harm given the history of psychological experiments etc there is utter foreseeability that means I do hold people doing this responsible for choosing not to care if their made-up stuff hurts, harms, injures, damages and wrecks lives.

It would be like someone being allowed to come up with a random potion for whitening teeth or colouring them pink being allowed to never test or be responsible for harm to health teeth kind or livelihoods before during and after them selling it. Both of which would be ridiculous but as I’m aware only one happens?

 

Obvious nonsense. They obviously can't tell the difference between, frankly, symptoms. Patients with this, patients with that, it's all the same to them. Without knowing the pathology, they're completely aimless. The conclusion makes no sense, they claim that the aim is to study effectiveness, they find none, not that they really looked hard, and still conclude with the usual "give us money for this, we'll take it all", since as they say, they commonly do this, with the same mediocre lack of results.