Recent studies suggest that COVID-19 survivors may experience long-term health consequences: in particular, neurological and mental health symptoms might be associated with long-term negative outcomes. This study is a secondary analysis of a larger cohort study and aims to determine the extent to which neurological and mental health sequelae are associated with survivors’ disability. Participants include COVID-19 survivors, with no pre-morbid brain conditions, who were discharged from the COVID-19 Unit of the ASST Spedali Civili Hospital between February and April 2020. At an average of 3.5 months after discharge, they were submitted to a neurological examination and completed the WHO Disability Assessment Schedule (WHODAS-12), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Score, the Pittsburgh Sleep Quality Index and the Montreal Cognitive Assessment. Multivariable regression analysis was carried out to analyze variables that explain WHODAS-12 variation. In total, 83 patients (63 males, average age 66.9, 95% CI: 64.2–69.7) were enrolled; average WHODAS-12 was 13.2 (95% CI: 9.7–16.6). Cognitive dysfunction, anxiety, fatigue, and hyposmia/hypogeusia explained 28.8% of WHODAS-12 variation. These findings underline the importance and need for longitudinal follow-up assessments after recovery from COVID-19 and suggest the need for early rehabilitation of residual symptoms to enhance patients’ functioning.

The use of instrumental tools for improving both the diagnostic accuracy and the prognostic soundness in patients with disorders of consciousness (DOC) plays an important role. However, the most recent international guidelines on DOC published by the American and the European Academies of Neurology and by the UK Royal College of Physicians contain heterogeneous recommendations on the implementation of these techniques in the clinical routine for both diagnosis and prognosis. With the present work, starting from the comparison of the DOC guidelines’ recommendations, we look for possible explanations behind such discrepancies considering the adopted methodologies and the reference health systems that could have affected the guidelines’ perspectives. We made a provocative argument about the need to find the most appropriate common methodology to retrieve and grade the evidence, increase the meta-analytic studies, and reduce the health policies that influence on the guidelines development that, in turn, should inform the health policies with the strongest scientific evidence.

Background: Occupational e–mental health (OeMH) interventions significantly reduce the burden of mental health conditions. The successful implementation of OeMH interventions is influenced by many implementation strategies, barriers, and facilitators across contexts, which, however, are not systematically tracked. One of the reasons is that international consensus on documenting and reporting the implementation of OeMH interventions is lacking. There is a need for practical guidance on the key factors influencing the implementation of interventions that organizations should consider. Stakeholder consultations secure a valuable source of information about these key strategies, barriers, and facilitators that are relevant to successful implementation of OeMH interventions. Objective: The objective of this study was to develop a brief checklist to guide the implementation of OeMH interventions. Methods: Based on the results of a recently published systematic review, we drafted a comprehensive checklist with a wide set of strategies, barriers, and facilitators that were identified as relevant for the implementation of OeMH interventions. We then used a 2-stage stakeholder consultation process to refine the draft checklist to a brief and practical checklist comprising key implementation factors. In the first stage, stakeholders evaluated the relevance and feasibility of items on the draft checklist using a web-based survey. The list of items comprised 12 facilitators presented as statements addressing “elements that positively affect implementation” and 17 barriers presented as statements addressing “concerns toward implementation.” If a strategy was deemed relevant, respondents were asked to rate it using a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “very difficult to implement” to “very easy to implement.” In the second stage, stakeholders were interviewed to elaborate on the most relevant barriers and facilitators shortlisted from the first stage. The interview mostly focused on the relevance and priority of strategies and factors affecting OeMH intervention implementation. In the interview, the stakeholders’ responses to the open survey’s questions were further explored. The final checklist included strategies ranked as relevant and feasible and the most relevant facilitators and barriers, which were endorsed during either the survey or the interviews. Results: In total, 26 stakeholders completed the web-based survey (response rate=24.8%) and 4 stakeholders participated in individual interviews. The OeMH intervention implementation checklist comprised 28 items, including 9 (32.1%) strategies, 8 (28.6%) barriers, and 11 (39.3%) facilitators. There was widespread agreement between findings from the survey and interviews, the most outstanding exception being the idea of proposing OeMH interventions as benefits for employees. Conclusions: Through our 2-stage stakeholder consultation, we developed a brief checklist that provides organizations with a guide for the implementation of OeMH interventions. Future research should empirically validate the effectiveness and usefulness of the checklist.

Monitoring the level of responsiveness of patients with Disorders of Consciousness (DoCs) represents an issue in all the settings where there is not the daily presence of clinicians, such as long-term and domestic settings. The involvement of patients’ informal caregivers (i.e., patients’ family) in such a monitoring process is thus fundamental. However, to date, no standardized tailored-made instruments exist that informal caregivers can use without the presence of clinicians, despite evidence illustrating the good accuracy of caregivers when expressing their opinions about the level of responsiveness of DoC patients. The present work aims to set the foundational knowledge, to create a standardized instrument that is able to assess the level of responsiveness of patients with DoCs by their informal caregivers. After selecting and modifying the items to be included in the new scale from the gold standard to diagnose DoCs (i.e., the Coma Recovery Scale-revised), and following a consensus process, we created the Social and Family Evaluation (SAFE) scale for caregivers of patients with DoCs. Although the SAFE needs a validation process, with the present work we provided its preliminary description along with insights into its clinical utility.

Sleep disorders are among the main comorbidities in patients with a Disorder of Consciousness (DOC). Given the key role of sleep in neural and cognitive functioning, detecting and treating sleep disorders in DOCs might be an effective therapeutic strategy to boost consciousness recovery and levels of awareness. To date, no systematic reviews have been conducted that explore the effect of sleep treatments in DOCs; thus, we systematically reviewed the existing studies on both pharmacological and non-pharmacological treatments for sleep disorders in DOCs. Among 2267 assessed articles, only 7 were included in the systematic review. The studies focused on two sleep disorder categories (sleep-related breathing disorders and circadian rhythm dysregulation) treated with both pharmacological (Modafinil and Intrathecal Baclofen) and non-pharmacological (positive airway pressure, bright light stimulation, and central thalamic deep brain stimulation) interventions. Although the limited number of studies and their heterogeneity do not allow generalized conclusions, all the studies highlighted the effectiveness of treatments on both sleep disorders and levels of awareness. For this reason, clinical and diagnostic evaluations able to detect sleep disorders in DOC patients should be adopted in the clinical routine for the purpose of intervening promptly with the most appropriate treatment.