Digital assistive technologies have the potential to address the pressing need for adequate therapy options for patients with long COVID (also known as post-COVID-19 condition) by enabling the implementation of individual and independent rehabilitation programs. However, the involvement of the target patient group is necessary to develop digital devices that are closely aligned to the needs of this particular patient group.
Participatory design approaches, such as cocreation, may be a solution for achieving usability and user acceptance. However, there are currently no set methods for implementing cocreative development processes incorporating patients. This study addresses the following research questions: what are the tasks and challenges associated with the involvement of patient groups? What lessons can be learned regarding the adequate involvement of patients with long COVID?
First, a literature review based on a 3-stage snowball process was conducted to identify the tasks and challenges emerging in the context of the cocreation of digital assistive devices and services with patient groups. Second, a qualitative analysis was conducted in an attempt to extract relevant findings and criteria from the identified studies. Third, using the method of theory adaptation, this paper presents recommendations for the further development of the existing concepts of cocreation in relation to patients with long COVID.
The challenges of an active involvement of patients in cocreative development in health care include hierarchical barriers and differences in the levels of specific knowledge between professionals and patients. In the case of long COVID, patients themselves are still inexperienced in dealing with their symptoms and are hardly organized into established groups. This amplifies general hurdles and leads to questions of group identity, power structure, and knowledge creation, which are not sufficiently addressed by the current methods of cocreation.
The adaptation of transdisciplinary methods to cocreative development approaches focusing on collaborative and inclusive communication can address the recurring challenges of actively integrating patients with long COVID into development processes.

The purpose of this focused review is to develop a consolidated hypothesis as to the causes and mechanisms of central sensitization and a related model for a treatment approach using Systemic Manual Therapy (SMT). The key to understanding central sensitization is a firm grasp on structure and function of the Locus-coeruleus noradrenaline system (LC-NA). This system uses an elaborate switching mechanism to control the level and rate of activation of multiple systems. This review evaluates the mechanisms and temporal relationships behind four components: salient stimuli, threat coding, aberrant afferent input, and oxidative stress. The five-stage temporal model for central sensitization includes phasic activation of the LC-NA system, salient stimuli, threat coding of salient stimuli, central sensitization, and neural degeneration. The three components of treatment include temporarily reducing afferent visceral input, shifting humoral inflammatory activity away from the brain and outside the body, and reducing oxidative stress by making oxygenated blood more available around the LC and other stressed areas in the brain. The SMT protocols that could help in reduction of visceral afferent input are GUOU, Barral and LAUG. Protocols that should shift humoral inflammatory activity away from the brain or completely out of the body include UD and DCS. One protocol that can potentially reduce oxidative stress by making oxygenated blood more available around the LC is CCCV. Future research and hypothesis-testing strategies as well as limitations are further discussed.

UNASSIGNED: Long-COVID is a condition characterized by the permanence of symptoms beyond 4 weeks after an initial infection. It affects 1 out of 5 people and is loosely related to the severity of acute infection and pathological mechanisms, which are yet to be understood.
UNASSIGNED: This article looks at currently available and under-studied therapies for long-COVID syndrome. It particularly gives focus to ongoing trials and reviews the underlying mechanisms. A comprehensive literature search was performed on PubMed and clincaltrial.gov of clinical trials concerning the management of long-COVID syndrome.
UNASSIGNED: \'Long-COVID\' syndrome is a new emergency characterized by several symptoms such as fatigue, dyspnea, cognitive and attention disorders, sleep disorders, post-traumatic stress disorder, muscle pain, and concentration problems. Despite the many guidelines available to date, there are no established treatments of long-COVID. Pharmacological research is studying known drugs that act on the reduction or modulation of systemic inflammation, or innovative drugs used in similar pathologies. Rehabilitation now seems to be the safest treatment to offer, whereas we will have to wait for the pharmacological research trials in progress as well as plan new trials based on a better understanding of the pathogenic mechanisms.

Long COVID is a clinical syndrome characterized by profound fatigue, neurocognitive difficulties, muscle pain, weakness, and depression, lasting beyond the 3-12 weeks following infection with SARS-CoV-2. Among the symptoms, neurocognitive and psychiatric sequelae, including attention and memory alterations, as well as anxiety and depression symptoms, have become major targets of current healthcare providers given the significant public health impact. In this context, assessment tools play a crucial role in the early screening of cognitive alterations due to Long COVID. Among others, the general cognitive assessment tools, such as the Montreal Cognitive assessment, and more specific ones, including the State Trait Inventory of Cognitive Fatigue and the Digit Span, may be of help in investigating the main neurocognitive alterations. Moreover, appropriate neurorehabilitative programs using specific methods and techniques (conventional and/or advanced) through a multidisciplinary team are required to treat COVID-19-related cognitive and behavioral abnormalities. In this narrative review, we sought to describe the main neurocognitive and psychiatric symptoms as well as to provide some clinical advice for the assessment and treatment of Long COVID.

We conducted literature reviews to uncover differential effects of sex on sequelae from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and on long COVID syndrome.
Two authors independently searched OvidSP in Embase, Medline, Biosis, and Derwent Drug File. Publications reporting original, sex-disaggregated data for sequelae of COVID-19 (published before August 2020) and long COVID syndrome (published before June 2021) were included in the reviews. The association between COVID-19 sequelae (i.e. lasting <4 weeks after symptom onset) and sex, and between long COVID syndrome (i.e. lasting >4 weeks after symptom onset) and sex, was determined by odds ratio (OR) and 95% confidence interval (CI) (statistical significance defined by 95% CI not including 1).
Of 4346 publications identified, 23 and 12 met eligibility criteria for COVID-19 sequelae and long COVID syndrome, respectively. COVID-19 sequelae in the categories of psychiatric/mood (OR = 1.80; 95% CI: 1.35-2.41), ENT (OR = 1.42; 95% CI: 1.39-1.46), musculoskeletal (OR = 1.15; 95% CI: 1.14-1.16), and respiratory (OR = 1.09; 95% CI: 1.08-1.11) were significantly more likely among females (vs. males), whereas renal sequelae (OR = 0.83; 95% CI: 0.75-0.93) were significantly more likely among males. The likelihood of having long COVID syndrome was significantly greater among females (OR = 1.22; 95% CI: 1.13-1.32), with the odds of ENT (OR = 2.28; 95% CI: 1.94-2.67), GI (OR = 1.60; 95% CI: 1.04-2.44), psychiatric/mood (OR = 1.58; 95% CI: 1.37-1.82), neurological (OR = 1.30; 95% CI: 1.03-1.63), dermatological (OR = 1.29; 95% CI: 1.05-1.58), and other (OR = 1.36; 95% CI: 1.25-1.49) disorders significantly higher among females and the odds of endocrine (OR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.69-0.81) and renal disorders (OR = 0.74; 95% CI: 0.64-0.86) significantly higher among males.
Sex-disaggregated differences for COVID-19 sequelae and long COVID syndrome were observed. Few COVID-19 studies report sex-disaggregated data, underscoring the need for further sex-based research/reporting of COVID-19 disease.