Previous research has categorised symptoms of COVID-19 / Long COVID into 12 thematic areas including: fever, myalgia, fatigue, impaired cognitive function, and that COVID-19 survivors had reduced levels of physical function, activities of daily living, and health-related quality of life. Our aim was to review the evidence for interventions or best practice to support people with Long COVID, or similar post-viral conditions characterised by fatigue, to return to normal activities. Evidence was included from guidelines, systematic reviews (SR), and primary studies. The primary studies focussed on Long COVID (LC) indicated that there should be a needs-based focus to care for those with LC. Consideration should be given to individuals living with LC in the same way as people with disabilities are accommodated in terms of workplace adjustment. Two SRs indicated that non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) for patients with LC or chronic fatigue syndrome could help improve function for activities of daily life. However, the third, most recent SR, concluded that there is a lack of robust evidence for NPIs. LC fatigue management methods may be beneficial under certain conditions. One SR reported work capability as an outcome however they did not find any studies which evaluated the impact of interventions on return to work/ normal life. One primary study, on individuals with CFS, described a written self-management programme. Following this intervention there was an 18% increase in the number of patients in employment. Policy and practice implications: Long COVID is still being established as a post-viral condition with many symptoms. Patient-centred treatment options such as occupational therapy, self-management therapy and talking therapy may be considered in the same way as for other debilitating conditions. Return-to-work accommodations are needed for all workers unable to return to full-time employment. Due to the nature of the studies included, there was little reported evidence of effectiveness of getting individuals back into their normal activities.

The COVID-19 pandemic contributed to longer waiting lists for people seeking to access mental health services. The NHS Five Year Forward View encourages the development of empowerment-based social prescribing interventions to supplement existing mental health programmes. Based in South Wales, EmotionMind Dynamic (EMD) is a lifestyle coaching programme that supports individuals suffering from anxiety or depression. In this evaluation of lifestyle coaching, a mixed-method social return on investment (SROI) methodology was used to value quantitative and qualitative data from face-to-face and online participants. Data collection took place between June 2021 and January 2022. Participants included both self-referred clients and those referred from health services. Mental wellbeing data were collected at baseline and at the end of the programme using the short Warwick–Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale (SWEMWBS) and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES). Baseline and follow-up data were available for 15 face-to-face participants and 17 online clients. Wellbeing valuation quantified and valued outcomes from participants. Results indicated that for every GBP 1 invested, lifestyle coaching generated social values ranging from GBP 4.12–GBP 7.08 for face-to-face clients compared with GBP 2.37–GBP 3.35 for online participants. Overall, lifestyle coaching generated positive social value ratios for both face-to-face and online clients.

There is growing interest in green social prescribing and connecting with nature-based activities to promote social cohesion along with improving levels of health, wealth and well-being. The Outdoor Partnership is a third sector organisation based in North Wales offering nature based social prescribing interventions. Individuals experiencing poor mental health and wellbeing are referred from GPs, community mental health services, and third sector organisations to the ‘Opening the Doors to the Outdoors’ (ODO) programme which is a 12-week outdoor walking and climbing green prescribing intervention. The purpose of the ODO programme is to provide a supportive environment to increase levels of physical activity among participants leading to improvements in overall health and mental wellbeing while promoting socialisation among peers. In this evaluation of a preventative green social prescribing intervention, a mixed method social return on investment (SROI) approach used quantitative and qualitative data from ODO participants. Data collection took place from April 2022–November 2022. Mental wellbeing data was collected at baseline and at 12 weeks using the Short Warwick Edinburgh Mental Wellbeing Scale, a social trust question, an overall health question, and the International Physical Activity Questionnaire- short form. Baseline and follow-up data was available for 52 ODO participants. Results indicate that for every £1 invested in the ODO programme, social values ranging from £4.90 to £5.36 were generated.

No abstract

Aim: The aim of this rapid review was to investigate whether lifestyle coaching could provide a cost-effective alternative to counselling for the UK National Health Service (NHS) treatment of common mental health conditions such as stress, anxiety and depression. Methods: A rapid review approach was used to determine the evidence of health economics evaluations in the field of mental health services. A literature search of PubMed, CINAHL, Cochrane Library, ASSIA, PsycINFO and MEDLINE produced 2807 articles. We removed 778 duplicates, and 2029 study articles remained. Two reviewers screened titles and abstracts (RG and KP), and 37 papers met the inclusion criteria of this review. Following a full-text screening, a further 27 papers were excluded due to lack of relevance. Study designs which did not include economic evaluations (n=15) or did not include an evaluation treatment of mental health conditions with talking therapies (n=15) did not meet the inclusion criteria. Ten papers were included in the final rapid review. Results: The database search yielded study articles which focused on the cost-effectiveness of counselling and other talking therapies such as Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT). No literature was found to determine the cost-effectiveness, or effectiveness of lifestyle coaching. Due to a lack of economic evaluations, this review could not determine the potential cost-effectiveness of lifestyle coaching as a means of addressing the backlog for mental health support such as counselling in the NHS. Conclusion: This review highlights the research gap in assessing the cost-effectiveness of lifestyle coaching for treating common mental health disorders. The proposed next step is to evaluate the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of lifestyle coaching versus current treatment as usual (counselling) by using a feasibility randomised control trial.