Search

Young people living with Long COVID are learning to navigate life with a constellation of poorly understood symptoms. Most qualitative studies on experiences living with Long COVID focus on adult populations. This study aimed to understand the experiences of young people living with Long COVID. Qualitative, semi-structured interviews were conducted ( n = 16); 11 young people (aged 13-19) and five parents were recruited from the Children and Young People with Long COVID (CLoCk) study ( n = 11) or its patient and public involvement and engagement (PPIE) group ( n = 5). Thematic analysis generated four themes: (i) Unravelling Long COVID: Exploring Symptom Journeys and Diagnostic Dilemmas; (ii) Identity Disruption and Adjustment; (iii) Long COVID's Ripple Effect: the impact on Mental Health, Connections, and Education; and (iv) Navigating Long COVID: barriers to support and accessing services. Treatment options were perceived as not widely available or ineffective, emphasising the need for viable and accessible interventions for young people living with Long COVID., Competing Interests: Declaration of conflicting interestsThe author(s) declared the following potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: Terence Stephenson is Chair of the Health Research Authority and therefore recused himself from the Research Ethics Application. Trudie Chalder acknowledges the financial support of the Department of Health via the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Specialist Biomedical Research Centre for Mental Health award to the South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust (SLaM) and the Institute of Psychiatry at King’s College London. Tamsin Ford’s research group receives funding from Place2Be for research methods consultancy. All remaining authors have no conflicts of interest.

Consensus statements can be very influential in medicine and public health. Some of these statements use systematic evidence synthesis but others fail on this front. Many consensus statements use panels of experts to deduce perceived consensus through Delphi processes. We argue that stacking of panel members towards one particular position or narrative is a major threat, especially in absence of systematic evidence review. Stacking may involve financial conflicts of interest, but non-financial conflicts of strong advocacy can also cause major bias. Given their emerging importance, we describe here how such consensus statements may be misleading, by analysing in depth a recent high-impact Delphi consensus statement on COVID-19 recommendations as a case example. We demonstrate that many of the selected panel members and at least 35% of the core panel members had advocated towards COVID-19 elimination (zero-COVID) during the pandemic and were leading members of aggressive advocacy groups. These advocacy conflicts were not declared in the Delphi consensus publication, with rare exceptions. Therefore, we propose that consensus statements should always require rigorous evidence synthesis and maximal transparency on potential biases towards advocacy or lobbyist groups to be valid. While advocacy can have many important functions, its biased impact on consensus panels should be carefully avoided., (Copyright © 2024 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)