Interventions for mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing in long COVID: a systematic review of registered trials
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Among patients diagnosed with COVID-19, a substantial proportion are experiencing ongoing symptoms for months after infection, known as 'long COVID'. Long COVID is associated with a wide range of physical and neuropsychological symptoms, including impacts on mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing. However, intervention research is only beginning to emerge. This systematic review synthesizes currently registered trials examining interventions for mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing in patients with long COVID. METHODS: Standard systematic review guidelines were followed. Trials registered in two large trial registries in 2020 to May 2022 were reviewed. Included studies were narratively synthesized by type of intervention and a risk-of-bias assessment was conducted. RESULTS: Forty-two registered trials were included, with a total target sample size of 5814 participants. These include 11 psychological interventions, five pharmacological and other medical interventions, and five evaluating herbal, nutritional, or natural supplement interventions. An additional nine trials are examining cognitive and neurorehabilitation interventions and 12 are examining physiotherapy or physical rehabilitation. Most trials are randomized, but many are feasibility trials; trials are evaluating a wide spectrum of outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: While there is a newly emerging body of research testing interventions for mental health, cognition, and psychological wellbeing in long COVID, the breadth and scope of the research remains limited. It is urgently incumbent on researchers to expand upon the intervention research currently under way, in order to generate high-quality evidence on a wide range of candidate interventions for diverse long COVID patient populations.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
A preliminary search identified one systematic review using the clinical trials registry that showed 11 ongoing trials on psychological interventions for those suffering from ongoing symptomatology or post-COVID-19 syndrome.
“The search identified one systematic review using the clinical trials registry which showed 11 ongoing trials on psychological interventions for those suffering from ongoing symptomatology or post-COVID-19 syndrome.19”
From Psychological treatments for the mental health symptoms among individuals infected with COVID-19: a scoping review protocol (2023) · cites this paper as [19]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 50 · Cited by 67
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Flöel, A. (2021). Neuromodulation through brain stimulation-assisted cognitive training in patients with post-COVID19 cognitive impairment. Retrieved from https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT04944147. PMC9002255 35410927
- Koczulla, A. R., & Schneeberger, T. (2021). Effects of cranial electrotherapy stimulation on anxiety of patients after COVID-19: A randomised controlled pilot study. Retrieved from https://ClinicalTrials.gov/show/NCT05126511. 40706565
- Veritas Health Innovation. (2021). Covidence systematic review software. Melbourne, Australia. Retrieved from www.covidence.org.
- Authors
- Hawke, L. D., Nguyen, A. T. P., Ski, C. F., Thompson, D. R., Ma, C., & Castle, D.
- Affiliations
- Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CA)
- University of Suffolk (GB)
- Queen's University Belfast (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Hawke, Lisa D.
- Venue
- Psychological Medicine
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2022-06-30
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 13
- Pages
- 2426-2440
- ISSN
- 0033-2917 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-8978
- PMC
- PMC9300978
- OpenAlex
- W4283725361
- Cited by
- 67
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 4
- FWCI
- 2.27
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- Psychological Medicine (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Minerva Access (University of Melbourne) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Research Portal (Queen's University Belfast) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (179893, 179893_1)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Long-Term Effects of COVID-19
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › COVID-19 and Mental Health
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Traumatic Brain Injury Research
- Keywords
- long COVID, post-COVID-19 mental health, cognitive impairment, psychological well-being, psychological intervention, pharmacological interventions, neurorehabilitation, physiotherapy, rehabilitation, neuropsychological symptoms
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome, Cognition, Humans, Mental Health, Bias
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review