Background: Around 2 million people in the UK suffer from Long COVID (LC). Of concern is the disease impact on productivity and informal care burden. This study aimed to quantify and value productivity losses and informal care receipt in a sample of LC patients in the UK. Methods: The target population comprised LC patients referred to LC specialist clinics. The questionnaires included a health economics questionnaire (HEQ) measuring productivity impacts, informal care receipt and service utilisation, EQ-5D-5L, C19-YRS LC condition-specific measure, and sociodemographic and COVID-19 history variables. Outcomes were changes from the incident infection resulting in LC to the month preceding the survey in paid work status/h, work income, work performance and informal care receipt. The human capital approach valued productivity losses; the proxy goods method valued caregiving hours. The values were extrapolated nationally using published prevalence data. Multilevel regressions, nested by region, estimated associations between the outcomes and patient characteristics. Results: 366 patients responded to HEQ (mean LC duration 449.9 days). 51.7% reduced paid work hours relative to the pre-infection period. Mean monthly work income declined by 24.5%. The average aggregate value of productivity loss since incident infection was £10,929 (95% bootstrap confidence interval £8,844-£13,014) and £5.7 billion (£3.8-£7.6 billion) extrapolated nationally. The corresponding values for informal caregiving were £8,726 (£6,247-£11,204) and £4.8 billion (£2.6-£7.0 billion). Multivariate analyses found significant associations between each outcome and health utility and C19-YRS subscale scores. Conclusion: LC significantly impacts productivity losses and provision of informal care, exacerbated by high national prevalence of LC.

Since the first wave of COVID-19 in March 2020 the number of people living with post-COVID syndrome has risen rapidly at global pace, however, questions still remain as to whether there is a hidden cohort of sufferers not accessing mainstream clinics. This group are likely to be constituted by already marginalised people at the sharp end of existing health inequalities and not accessing formal clinics. The challenge of supporting such patients includes the question of how best to organise and facilitate different forms of support. As such, we aim to examine whether peer support is a potential option for hidden or hardly reached populations of long COVID sufferers with a specific focus on the UK, though not exclusively. Through a systematic hermeneutic literature review of peer support in other conditions (57 papers), we evaluate the global potential of peer support for the ongoing needs of people living with long COVID. Through our analysis, we highlight three key peer support perspectives in healthcare reflecting particular theoretical perspectives, goals, and understandings of what is 'good health', we call these: biomedical (disease control/management), relational (intersubjective mutual support) and socio-political (advocacy, campaigning & social context). Additionally, we identify three broad models for delivering peer support: service-led, community-based and social media. Attention to power relations, social and cultural capital, and a co-design approach are key when developing peer support services for disadvantaged and underserved groups. Models from other long-term conditions suggest that peer support for long COVID can and should go beyond biomedical goals and harness the power of relational support and collective advocacy. This may be particularly important when seeking to reduce health inequalities and improve access for a potentially hidden cohort of sufferers.

The COVID‐19 pandemic had a disproportionate impact on ethnically minoritised and other marginalised communities, yet little is known about the impacts of long COVID‐19 (LC) on this group. Living with LC takes its toll both physically, emotionally and financially and even more so when a diagnosis is hard to come by. By using qualitative interviews centring the view of undiagnosed and marginalised communities already classed as ‘underserved’ in the medical literature, we show the range of barriers and impacts faced by these groups in the UK, and the strategies of resilience they use. Whether trapped on a ‘diagnostic odyssey’ at the level of primary care, struggling to maintain employment and businesses, or managing family commitments, we argue many minoritised communities are caught in a liminal space of misrecognition, invalidation and ambiguity. We show how these impacts are generated by tensions and challenges in the process and categorisation of diagnosis, and how this effects the daily lives of many individuals already on the receiving end of health inequity. We also offer some examples and suggestions for best practices.

The protracted form of COVID-19 known as ‘long covid’ was first described in 2020. Its symptoms, course and prognosis vary widely; some patients have a multi-system, disabling and prolonged illness. In 2021, ring-fenced funding was provided to establish 90 long covid clinics in England; some clinics were also established in Scotland and Wales. The NIHR-funded LOCOMOTION project implemented a UK-wide quality improvement collaborative involving ten of these clinics, which ran from 2021 to 2023. At regular online meetings held approximately 8-weekly, participants prioritized topics, discussed research evidence and guidelines, and presented exemplar case histories and clinic audits. A patient advisory group also held a priority-setting exercise, participated in quality meetings and undertook a service evaluation audit. The goal of successive quality improvement cycles aimed at changing practice to align with evidence was sometimes hard to achieve because definitive evidence did not yet exist in this new condition; many patients had comorbidities; and clinics were practically constrained in various ways. Nevertheless, much progress was made and a series of ‘best practice’ guides was produced, covering general assessment and management; breathing difficulties; orthostatic tachycardia and other autonomic symptoms; fatigue and cognitive impairment; and vocational rehabilitation. This paper summarises key findings with the front-line clinician in mind.

Introduction: Organised by the ‘Qualitative Long Covid Network’, a workshop for qualitative Long COVID (LC) researchers, LC charity representatives and people with LC took place in June 2023, where research on the intersectional inequalities affecting LC prevalence, recognition and care was shared and discussed.Methods: Five key themes were drawn up from presentations, discussions and reflections during the workshop, which are presented in this study.Results: The following five themes are discussed: the unfairness of LC, difficulties in accessing care, mistrust of the healthcare system, a lack of understanding of LC and experiences of stigma and discrimination. Factors that widen or narrow inequalities related to LC were identified.Conclusion: A call to action is proposed to investigate and address inequalities through a robust LC research agenda that speaks with conviction to policy and decision‐makers. We argue that there needs to be a strong investment in research and evidence‐based policy and practice to mitigate the worst effects of the condition and address the inequalities in experience, treatment and support, which are experienced more often and more acutely by some of society's most vulnerable and disadvantaged individuals.Patient and Public (PPI) Contribution: Projects included in this article had PPI ongoing activity to inform their research. A member of the CONVALESCENCE PPI group presented at the QLC Network ‘Long Covid and Health Inequalities’ workshop, as did members of Long COVID Kids, Long COVID Support and Long COVID SOS charities. They were all invited to be co‐authors of this article.

In the United Kingdom, the government’s failure to consistently record the race and ethnicity of those who have died from COVID-19 and the disproportionate mortality impact of the virus on Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities speaks to a systemic failure to account for the interplay between the social construction of race and the lived experience of racism, itself presented biologically as ‘poor health’. This failure has run for far longer and far deeper than many would care to admit. In this article, I use my own positionality as a ‘Mixed-Race Black’ woman to argue that the unique place of medical anthropology to sit at the intersection of the social, political, biological, and ecological means it can provide alternative approaches to understanding the disproportionate impacts of the pandemic and lay some foundations for repair strategies that encompass the patterns, processes, and constructs of health inequality.