Abstract
Long COVID presents substantial challenges for workforce participation, affecting millions of individuals worldwide who experience persistent symptoms following acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. This dissertation examines the workplace adjustments offered to employees with long COVID and evaluates the evidence for their effectiveness in supporting sustained employment. A comprehensive literature synthesis was conducted, drawing upon peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, and qualitative studies published between 2020 and 2025. The findings reveal that flexible working hours, remote work arrangements, phased return-to-work plans, and modified duties represent the most commonly offered accommodations. However, robust quantitative evidence demonstrating improved return-to-work outcomes remains notably limited, with most supporting data derived from qualitative research or extrapolated from other chronic conditions. Significant barriers to effective implementation include employer stigma, insufficient understanding of the condition’s episodic nature, inflexible organisational policies, and administrative complexities in accessing support. The literature consistently emphasises that individualised, adaptable support strategies—developed collaboratively between employees, employers, and occupational health professionals—are essential for promoting sustainable employment outcomes. Future research should prioritise generating high-quality quantitative evidence to inform best practice guidelines.
Introduction
The emergence of long COVID, also termed post-COVID-19 condition or post-acute sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection, has created unprecedented challenges for healthcare systems, social welfare structures, and labour markets globally. The World Health Organization (2021) defines long COVID as a condition occurring in individuals with a history of probable or confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection, typically three months from onset, with symptoms lasting at least two months that cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis. Symptoms are characteristically diverse, fluctuating, and may include persistent fatigue, cognitive dysfunction (commonly termed “brain fog”), breathlessness, post-exertional malaise, and numerous other manifestations affecting multiple organ systems.
The employment implications of long COVID are substantial and far-reaching. Conservative estimates suggest that between 10% and 20% of individuals who contract COVID-19 experience prolonged symptoms, with significant proportions unable to return to their pre-illness employment status (Office for National Statistics, 2023). This phenomenon has created a “hidden workforce crisis,” wherein previously healthy and economically active individuals find themselves unable to sustain their occupational roles, resulting in reduced household incomes, increased reliance upon social welfare systems, and diminished national productivity.
The academic and practical significance of understanding workplace adjustments for long COVID cannot be overstated. From an academic perspective, this condition offers a unique opportunity to examine how employment systems respond to novel, poorly understood chronic illnesses characterised by episodic disability. Practically, identifying effective workplace accommodations holds the potential to support millions of affected workers in maintaining economic participation and psychological wellbeing, whilst simultaneously benefiting employers through reduced turnover costs and preserved institutional knowledge.
The challenge is compounded by long COVID’s classification as an “invisible disability”—a condition whose symptoms are not immediately apparent to observers, leading to scepticism, stigma, and inadequate support. Unlike physical disabilities that may be accommodated through environmental modifications, long COVID’s cognitive and fatigue-related symptoms require more nuanced, flexible approaches that traditional occupational health frameworks may struggle to address.
This dissertation addresses a critical gap in the current evidence base by synthesising existing knowledge regarding workplace adjustments for long COVID, examining both the types of accommodations offered and the evidence for their effectiveness. By doing so, it aims to inform policy development, employer practices, and future research directions in this emerging field.
Aim and objectives
Aim
The primary aim of this dissertation is to critically examine workplace adjustments offered to employees with long COVID and to evaluate the available evidence regarding their effectiveness in supporting sustained employment participation.
Objectives
To achieve this aim, the following specific objectives guide this research:
1. To identify and categorise the types of workplace adjustments commonly offered or recommended for employees experiencing long COVID symptoms.
2. To evaluate the existing evidence base regarding the effectiveness of these workplace adjustments in facilitating return-to-work and sustained employment outcomes.
3. To identify barriers that impede the successful implementation of workplace accommodations for individuals with long COVID.
4. To examine facilitators and best practices that enhance the likelihood of successful workplace adjustment implementation.
5. To highlight gaps in current research and propose directions for future investigation to strengthen the evidence base.
Methodology
This dissertation employs a literature synthesis methodology, drawing upon a comprehensive review of peer-reviewed research, systematic reviews, qualitative studies, and policy guidance documents published between 2020 and 2025. The approach represents a rigorous examination of the available evidence base, synthesising findings across multiple study types to address the research objectives.
Search strategy
A comprehensive search was conducted across major academic databases, including Semantic Scholar, PubMed, and the Consensus research database, which indexes over 170 million research papers. The search strategy employed 22 unique queries targeting foundational context regarding long COVID and employment, specific workplace adjustments, effectiveness assessments, related post-viral conditions, barriers and limitations, and citation graph exploration to identify seminal works.
Search terms included combinations of: “long COVID,” “post-COVID condition,” “workplace adjustments,” “reasonable accommodations,” “return to work,” “employment outcomes,” “flexible working,” “remote work,” “phased return,” “occupational health,” and “disability support.” Boolean operators were employed to refine searches and ensure comprehensive coverage of the literature.
Inclusion and exclusion criteria
Studies were included if they addressed workplace adjustments or accommodations for individuals with long COVID or post-COVID-19 condition; examined employment outcomes, return-to-work processes, or workplace barriers; were published in English in peer-reviewed journals or as preprints from reputable sources; and were published between January 2020 and December 2025.
Studies were excluded if they focused exclusively on acute COVID-19 without addressing long-term sequelae; did not address employment or workplace factors; or represented opinion pieces without empirical or systematic review foundations.
Selection process
The initial search identified 1,138 potentially relevant papers. Following title and abstract screening, 667 papers were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 315 were deemed relevant based on full-text review. The final synthesis incorporated the 50 most pertinent papers, selected based on methodological quality, relevance to the research objectives, and contribution to the evidence base.
Data synthesis
A narrative synthesis approach was adopted, grouping findings thematically according to the research objectives. This approach was selected as appropriate given the heterogeneity of study designs, populations, and outcome measures across the included literature. Where possible, evidence strength was assessed based on study design, sample size, and consistency of findings across multiple sources.
Methodological limitations
This synthesis is limited by the quality and availability of primary research. As long COVID is a recently recognised condition, the evidence base remains in its early stages of development, with a predominance of qualitative studies and a paucity of randomised controlled trials. The synthesis reflects these limitations whilst acknowledging the valuable insights provided by existing research.
Literature review
Defining long COVID and its employment implications
Long COVID represents a heterogeneous condition encompassing over 200 documented symptoms affecting virtually every organ system (Davis et al., 2023). The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (2022) guidance distinguishes between ongoing symptomatic COVID-19 (4-12 weeks post-infection) and post-COVID-19 syndrome (symptoms persisting beyond 12 weeks). For employment purposes, both presentations may significantly impact work capacity.
The prevalence of long COVID among working-age populations presents a substantial public health challenge. The Office for National Statistics (2023) reported that approximately 1.9 million individuals in the United Kingdom experienced self-reported long COVID as of March 2023, with fatigue (72%), difficulty concentrating (51%), and shortness of breath (41%) representing the most commonly reported symptoms. Critically, 72% of individuals with long COVID reported that their symptoms adversely affected their day-to-day activities, with 381,000 individuals reporting that their ability to undertake daily activities had been “limited a lot.”
The employment consequences are stark. Research by Macewan et al. (2024) documented substantial impacts on employment and wellbeing, with affected individuals reporting reduced working hours, job losses, and significant financial strain. Guzmán et al. (2025) conducted a population-based interview study in England, finding that participants placed considerable emphasis on maintaining employment despite their symptoms, often pushing themselves beyond their physical limits with consequent health deterioration.
Types of workplace adjustments offered
The literature identifies a consistent set of workplace adjustments recommended and offered to employees with long COVID. These accommodations can be categorised into several domains.
Flexible working arrangements
Flexible working hours or schedules represent the most frequently reported accommodation, allowing employees to adapt their working patterns to accommodate symptom fluctuations. This may include later start times to accommodate morning fatigue, shortened workdays, or compressed working weeks. Remote or hybrid work options enable employees to work from home either full-time or part-time, reducing the physical and cognitive demands of commuting whilst providing greater control over the working environment (Spencer et al., 2023; Torrance et al., 2023; Wei et al., 2025).
Phased return-to-work approaches
Phased return-to-work plans allow employees to gradually increase their working hours and responsibilities over time, rather than returning immediately to full capacity. This approach acknowledges the progressive nature of recovery for many individuals with long COVID and reduces the risk of setbacks caused by overexertion (Gyllensten, Holm and Sandén, 2023).
Workload and duty modifications
Reduced workloads, modified duties, and task reallocation enable employees to continue working whilst avoiding activities that exacerbate symptoms. This may include shifting from physically demanding tasks to desk-based work, reducing customer-facing responsibilities, or redistributing cognitively intensive tasks to periods when the employee reports better function (Daniels et al., 2025).
Environmental and scheduling modifications
Regular breaks or microbreaks throughout the working day help manage fatigue and prevent symptom exacerbation. Changes to the physical workspace, such as access to quiet rooms, ergonomic equipment, or improved ventilation, may also be beneficial for some individuals. Autonomy over scheduling allows employees to manage their energy levels more effectively (Al-Oraibi et al., 2025).
Organisational support structures
Access to occupational health services, including assessment, advice, and ongoing monitoring, represents an important structural support. Job sharing arrangements enable continued participation in employment at reduced capacity. Regular check-ins between employees, line managers, and human resources departments facilitate ongoing adjustment of accommodations as symptoms fluctuate (Nagra et al., 2024).
These accommodations are broadly consistent with guidance from professional bodies. The Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development has published recommendations for supporting employees with long COVID, emphasising flexibility, understanding, and ongoing dialogue. Similarly, the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence guidance recommends workplace assessments and reasonable adjustments as part of comprehensive long COVID management (Spencer et al., 2023).
Evidence for effectiveness of workplace adjustments
Despite the widespread recommendation of workplace adjustments for long COVID, the evidence base for their effectiveness remains notably limited. This represents a significant gap in current knowledge and presents challenges for evidence-based policy and practice development.
Qualitative evidence
The majority of available evidence derives from qualitative studies examining the lived experiences of individuals with long COVID and their interactions with the workplace. Torrance et al. (2023) explored the experiences of healthcare staff with long COVID in Scotland, finding that flexible working arrangements and supportive management practices were valued by employees and appeared to facilitate continued employment participation. However, the study also highlighted considerable variation in the availability and quality of support across different organisational contexts.
Gyllensten, Holm and Sandén (2023) identified workplace factors that promote and hinder work ability among individuals with long-term COVID-19 effects in Sweden. Their qualitative analysis emphasised the importance of understanding employers, flexible arrangements, and the ability to adapt work to fluctuating symptoms. Conversely, rigid expectations, unsupportive colleagues, and lack of understanding about the condition impeded successful workplace participation.
Al-Oraibi et al. (2025) examined the impact of long COVID on UK healthcare workers through interviews with affected employees, their families, colleagues, and managers. Their findings underscored the value of accommodations but also revealed widespread inconsistency in support provision and significant stigma surrounding the condition.
Systematic review evidence
Systematic reviews have consistently highlighted the paucity of high-quality quantitative evidence. Spencer et al. (2023) conducted a rapid review of interventions to support people with long COVID to return to normal activities. Their findings revealed that whilst various accommodations are recommended, robust quantitative data demonstrating improved return-to-work rates or sustained employment outcomes are largely absent. The review noted that much of the available guidance is based on expert consensus or extrapolated from evidence regarding other chronic conditions characterised by fatigue, such as chronic fatigue syndrome or myalgic encephalomyelitis.
Nagra et al. (2024) undertook a scoping review of return-to-work interventions and recommendations for people living with long COVID. Their comprehensive analysis identified a range of recommended interventions but concluded that high-quality evidence for effectiveness remains limited. The review suggested that multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes may hold promise but require further rigorous evaluation through controlled trials.
Extrapolation from related conditions
Given the limited long COVID-specific evidence, researchers and practitioners have drawn upon the evidence base for related conditions. Hutson and Hutson (2023) proposed utilising neurodiverse workplace strategies to support individuals with long COVID, drawing parallels between the cognitive symptoms of long COVID and neurodevelopmental conditions. Similarly, Stelson et al. (2023) analysed return-to-work with long COVID through an episodic disability framework, noting similarities with conditions such as multiple sclerosis or HIV/AIDS that are characterised by fluctuating symptoms and periods of remission and relapse.
Whilst this extrapolation provides useful conceptual frameworks and potential strategies, it cannot substitute for direct evidence regarding long COVID-specific interventions. The unique symptom profile, natural history, and social context of long COVID may limit the applicability of evidence from other conditions.
Barriers to effective implementation
The literature identifies multiple barriers that impede the successful implementation of workplace adjustments for long COVID, operating at individual, organisational, and systemic levels.
Stigma and lack of understanding
Stigma surrounding long COVID represents a pervasive barrier to support. Thompson (2023) argued that employers must provide better support to workers with long COVID, noting that scepticism about the condition’s legitimacy leads to inadequate accommodations. The invisible nature of many long COVID symptoms compounds this problem, as affected individuals may appear healthy despite experiencing debilitating fatigue or cognitive impairment. Guzmán et al. (2025) documented how employees frequently concealed their symptoms or pushed through illness due to fears about how they would be perceived.
Inflexible organisational policies
Rigid organisational policies and procedures may preclude the flexibility required to accommodate long COVID’s episodic nature. Anderson et al. (2024) examined the “rehabilitative work” of returning to employment with long COVID, finding that many workplace policies assume linear recovery trajectories that do not align with the relapsing-remitting pattern characteristic of the condition. Time-limited sick leave provisions and fixed accommodation periods may fail to provide adequate support for a condition with uncertain recovery timelines.
Administrative and bureaucratic burdens
Accessing accommodations often requires navigating complex administrative processes that may themselves be inaccessible to individuals experiencing cognitive dysfunction or fatigue. Requirements for medical certification, occupational health assessments, and formal accommodation requests may create significant barriers, particularly for those without supportive line managers or accessible human resources support (Wei et al., 2025).
Financial pressures
Financial concerns affect both employees and employers. For employees, reduced working hours—whilst potentially beneficial for symptom management—may result in reduced income that creates additional stress and pressure to return to full-time work prematurely. Macewan et al. (2024) documented how financial insecurity due to reduced hours and sick leave limits represented a major concern for affected workers. For employers, particularly small and medium enterprises, providing extended accommodations may strain resources, leading to pressure for rapid resolution (Chen et al., 2023).
Lack of specific guidance
Whilst general guidance exists, specific evidence-based recommendations for long COVID workplace adjustments remain limited. This uncertainty may lead to inconsistent support provision, with outcomes dependent upon individual manager discretion rather than standardised organisational approaches (Tan and Koh, 2023).
Facilitators and best practices
Despite these barriers, the literature also identifies factors that facilitate successful workplace adjustment implementation.
Proactive and supportive management
Supportive management practices—characterised by empathy, flexibility, and a genuine commitment to employee wellbeing—emerge as critical facilitators. Managers who maintain open communication, demonstrate understanding of the condition, and actively seek solutions rather than focusing on limitations appear to promote more successful outcomes (Torrance et al., 2023; Gyllensten, Holm and Sandén, 2023).
Ongoing dialogue and adjustment
The episodic nature of long COVID necessitates ongoing dialogue between employees and employers, with regular review and adaptation of accommodations as symptoms fluctuate. Static, time-limited adjustments are often inadequate for a condition characterised by unpredictable variability. Best practice involves establishing regular check-ins and creating mechanisms for rapid adjustment without repeated bureaucratic processes (Guzmán et al., 2025).
Occupational health involvement
Involvement of occupational health professionals provides several benefits, including expert assessment of work capacity, recommendations for appropriate accommodations, and legitimisation of the condition within the organisational context. Access to occupational health services varies considerably across sectors and organisations, with some employees—particularly those in precarious employment or small organisations—lacking this support entirely (Al-Oraibi et al., 2025).
Clear legal and policy frameworks
In jurisdictions where long COVID is recognised as a disability under equality legislation, affected individuals may have legal entitlements to reasonable adjustments. In the United Kingdom, the Equality Act 2010 may apply where long COVID constitutes a disability as defined by the Act—a physical or mental impairment that has a substantial and long-term adverse effect on the ability to carry out normal day-to-day activities. Such legal frameworks provide important protections and may encourage organisational compliance (Parkin et al., 2024).
Integration with broader wellbeing initiatives
Organisations with established cultures of employee wellbeing may be better positioned to support workers with long COVID. Where flexible working, mental health support, and disability awareness are embedded within organisational culture, extending these provisions to long COVID may encounter less resistance and be implemented more effectively (Conard et al., 2025).
External resources and support
Access to external resources—including vocational rehabilitation services, government disability support programmes, and peer support networks—may complement workplace accommodations and enhance overall support for affected individuals. Lunt et al. (2022) highlighted what workers themselves can identify about post-COVID workability, emphasising the value of involving employees as experts in their own condition and needs.
Discussion
This literature synthesis reveals a complex picture regarding workplace adjustments for long COVID. Whilst a broad consensus exists regarding the types of accommodations that should be offered—flexible working hours, remote work options, phased returns, modified duties, and supportive management practices—the evidence base for their effectiveness remains notably underdeveloped. This discussion critically analyses these findings in relation to the stated research objectives and considers their implications for policy, practice, and future research.
Addressing objective one: types of adjustments offered
The first objective sought to identify and categorise workplace adjustments commonly offered to employees with long COVID. The synthesis reveals a consistent pattern across multiple studies and jurisdictions, with flexible working arrangements representing the most frequently recommended and implemented accommodations. This consistency suggests an emerging consensus within the occupational health and human resources communities regarding appropriate responses to long COVID in the workplace.
However, it is important to note that recommendations do not necessarily translate into implementation. Several studies documented significant variation in the actual availability of accommodations, with access dependent upon sector, organisation size, individual manager attitudes, and employee bargaining power. Healthcare workers, who feature prominently in the literature due to their high COVID-19 exposure, may represent a relatively privileged group in terms of access to occupational health support, potentially limiting the generalisability of findings to other sectors.
Addressing objective two: evidence for effectiveness
The second objective concerned evaluating evidence for the effectiveness of workplace adjustments. Here, the findings are sobering. Despite widespread recommendation of accommodations, robust quantitative evidence demonstrating improved employment outcomes is largely absent. The evidence base is dominated by qualitative studies documenting employee experiences and preferences, with systematic reviews consistently noting the paucity of controlled trials or longitudinal outcome studies.
This evidence gap has significant implications. Without robust effectiveness data, practitioners and policymakers are operating largely on the basis of face validity and extrapolation from other conditions. Whilst the logic underlying recommended accommodations is sound—reduced demands should, in theory, reduce symptom exacerbation and support continued employment—the actual impact on return-to-work rates, job retention, and long-term employment trajectories remains unquantified.
The reliance upon qualitative evidence is not without value. Qualitative studies provide rich insights into the lived experience of long COVID in the workplace, revealing nuances that quantitative outcome measures might miss. They illuminate why certain accommodations are perceived as helpful, what barriers impede their effective implementation, and how organisational cultures shape support provision. However, qualitative evidence alone cannot answer questions about comparative effectiveness or optimal intervention design.
Addressing objective three: barriers to implementation
The third objective focused on identifying barriers to workplace adjustment implementation. The synthesis reveals a multi-level barrier structure, with impediments operating at individual, organisational, and systemic levels. Stigma and lack of understanding emerge as particularly significant, reflecting broader societal challenges in recognising and legitimising invisible chronic conditions.
The invisible disability dimension of long COVID creates a distinctive set of challenges. Unlike conditions with visible manifestations, long COVID requires disclosure by the affected individual—a decision fraught with risk given potential stigmatisation. Even where disclosure occurs, the gap between apparent healthfulness and reported symptoms may generate scepticism among colleagues and managers unfamiliar with the condition.
Financial pressures represent another critical barrier that operates bidirectionally. Employees facing income reduction may feel compelled to refuse accommodations that would reduce their earnings, potentially exacerbating their condition. Simultaneously, employers—particularly smaller organisations with limited resources—may struggle to sustain extended accommodations without clear endpoints. These financial dynamics create perverse incentives that may undermine the success of workplace adjustments.
Addressing objective four: facilitators and best practices
The fourth objective examined facilitators and best practices for successful implementation. The findings emphasise the importance of individualised, adaptive approaches developed through ongoing dialogue between employees and employers. This represents a significant departure from traditional accommodation models that may assume static disabilities with predictable support requirements.
The episodic disability framework, as elaborated by Stelson et al. (2023), provides a useful conceptual lens for understanding long COVID workplace challenges. Unlike stable disabilities, episodic conditions are characterised by periods of relative wellness interspersed with flare-ups or relapses. Workplace support systems designed for static conditions may struggle to accommodate this variability, highlighting the need for more flexible, responsive approaches.
Supportive management emerges as perhaps the single most important facilitator of successful workplace adjustment. Where line managers demonstrate understanding, maintain open communication, and actively problem-solve, employees report more positive experiences and outcomes. This finding has significant implications for manager training and organisational culture development.
Addressing objective five: research gaps and future directions
The fifth objective sought to identify research gaps and propose future directions. The most significant gap is the absence of high-quality quantitative evidence regarding intervention effectiveness. This gap is understandable given long COVID’s novelty and the challenges of conducting controlled trials in complex organisational settings, but it nonetheless limits evidence-based practice development.
Specific research gaps identified include: the comparative effectiveness of different accommodation types; the optimal timing and duration of accommodations; the role of financial supports in conjunction with workplace adjustments; sector-specific barriers and facilitators; and the long-term employment trajectories of individuals with long COVID under different support conditions.
Theoretical and practical implications
The findings have significant theoretical implications for understanding disability, work, and chronic illness. Long COVID challenges traditional conceptualisations of disability that emphasise stability and predictability. The episodic, fluctuating nature of the condition requires reconceptualising workplace accommodation from a one-time adjustment to an ongoing, dynamic process of negotiation and adaptation.
Practically, the findings suggest that organisations should move beyond checklist approaches to accommodation, instead developing flexible systems capable of responding to changing support needs over time. This requires investment in manager training, occupational health capacity, and organisational cultures that normalise ongoing dialogue about work adjustments.
Limitations of the evidence base
Several limitations of the synthesised evidence warrant acknowledgement. The predominance of studies from high-income countries, particularly the United Kingdom, limits global generalisability. The overrepresentation of healthcare workers—whilst understandable given their exposure risk—may not reflect the experiences of workers in other sectors. The reliance upon self-report measures in most studies introduces potential bias, and the absence of long-term follow-up limits understanding of sustained outcomes.
Conclusions
This dissertation has examined workplace adjustments offered to employees with long COVID and evaluated the evidence for their effectiveness. In addressing the stated objectives, several key conclusions emerge.
First, a broad consensus exists regarding the types of workplace adjustments appropriate for long COVID, with flexible working hours, remote work options, phased return-to-work plans, modified duties, and supportive management practices representing the most commonly recommended accommodations. These recommendations are broadly consistent across professional guidance documents and empirical studies, suggesting an emerging best practice framework.
Second, and critically, the evidence base for the effectiveness of these adjustments remains notably limited. Whilst qualitative studies suggest that accommodations can help some individuals manage symptoms and remain employed, robust quantitative data demonstrating improved return-to-work rates or sustained employment outcomes are largely absent. This evidence gap represents a significant limitation for evidence-based policy and practice development.
Third, multiple barriers impede effective implementation of workplace adjustments, including stigma and lack of understanding about long COVID, inflexible organisational policies, administrative burdens in accessing support, and financial pressures affecting both employees and employers. These barriers operate at individual, organisational, and systemic levels, requiring multi-faceted responses.
Fourth, facilitators of successful implementation include supportive management practices, ongoing dialogue and adjustment as symptoms fluctuate, involvement of occupational health professionals, clear legal and policy frameworks, and integration with broader organisational wellbeing initiatives. The episodic nature of long COVID necessitates moving beyond static, time-limited accommodations towards dynamic, adaptive support systems.
The significance of these findings extends beyond the immediate context of long COVID. The condition offers lessons for workplace responses to chronic illness more broadly, highlighting the limitations of traditional accommodation models and the importance of flexibility, understanding, and ongoing support.
Future research should prioritise generating robust quantitative evidence regarding which specific workplace interventions most effectively improve sustained employment outcomes for people with long COVID. This should include controlled trials where feasible, as well as longitudinal cohort studies examining employment trajectories under different support conditions. Research should also examine the interaction between financial supports and workplace adjustments, investigate sector-specific barriers and facilitators, and develop and evaluate training programmes for managers and occupational health professionals.
In conclusion, whilst workplace adjustments such as flexible working, remote work, and phased returns are widely recommended for employees with long COVID, their overall effectiveness remains under-researched. Ongoing individualised planning and support, developed collaboratively between employees, employers, and occupational health professionals, is essential given the condition’s characteristic symptom variability. Addressing the identified evidence gaps should be a priority for researchers, policymakers, and practitioners seeking to support the millions of individuals worldwide affected by this emerging chronic condition.
References
Al-Oraibi, A., Tarrant, C., Woolf, K., Nellums, L. and Pareek, M., 2025. The impact of long COVID on UK healthcare workers and their workplace: a qualitative study of healthcare workers with long COVID, their families, colleagues and managers. *BMC Health Services Research*, 25. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-025-12677-x
Anderson, E., Hunt, K., Wild, C., Nettleton, S., Ziebland, S. and Maclean, A., 2024. Episodic disability and adjustments for work: the ‘rehabilitative work’ of returning to employment with Long Covid. *Disability & Society*, 40, pp. 1239-1261. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2024.2331722
Chen, K., Rogers, M., Clark, M., Zandstra, T., Lovgren, L., Beaudoin, F. and Chambers, L., 2023. Pandemic Preparedness and the Workforce: Employer Experiences with Long COVID. *Rhode Island Medical Journal*, 106(11), pp. 54-61.
Conard, S., Cunningham-Hill, M., Kusti, M., Mukherji, S., Rawlins, W. and Schwartz, S., 2025. Employers’ Long Game for Long Covid. *American Journal of Health Promotion*, 39, pp. 965-968. https://doi.org/10.1177/08901171241308066c
Cruickshank, M., Brazzelli, M., Manson, P., Torrance, N. and Grant, A., 2024. What is the impact of long-term COVID-19 on workers in healthcare settings? A rapid systematic review of current evidence. *PLOS ONE*, 19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0299743
Daniels, S., Wei, H., McElvenny, D., Van Tongeren, M., Bramwell, D., Coleman, A., Forde, D. and Wiggans, R., 2025. Return to work with long COVID: a rapid review of support and challenges. *BMJ Open*, 15. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2025-101698
Davis, H.E., McCorkell, L., Vogel, J.M. and Topol, E.J., 2023. Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations. *Nature Reviews Microbiology*, 21(3), pp. 133-146.
Guzmán, V., Di Gravio, C., Cooper, E., Lound, A., Smith, N., O’Hara, M., Atchison, C., Cooke, G., Chadeau, M., Elliott, P. and Ward, H., 2025. “I Put a Lot of Emphasis on Work Because I Want to Keep My Job”: A Population-Based Interview Study of Long Covid and Employment Changes in England. *Health Expectations: An International Journal of Public Participation in Health Care and Health Policy*, 28. https://doi.org/10.1111/hex.70476
Gyllensten, K., Holm, A. and Sandén, H., 2023. Workplace factors that promote and hinder work ability and return to work among individuals with long-term effects of COVID-19: A qualitative study. *Work (Reading, Mass.)*, 75, pp. 1101-1112. https://doi.org/10.3233/wor-220541
Hutson, P. and Hutson, J., 2023. Utilizing Neurodiverse Workplace Strategies to Support the Growing Population of Long COVID Cases in a Neuro inclusive Workplace: A Paradigm Shift for Neuro acquired Employees. *International Journal of Integrated Medical Research*. https://doi.org/10.57181/ijoimr/vol10i02/115
Kniffin, K., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S., Bakker, A., Bamberger, P., Bapuji, H., Bhave, D., Choi, V., Creary, S., Demerouti, E., Flynn, F., Gelfand, M., Greer, L., Johns, G., Kesebir, S., Klein, P., Lee, S., Ozcelik, H., Petriglieri, J., Rothbard, N., Rudolph, C., Shaw, J., Sirola, N., Wanberg, C., Wilmot, M. and Vugt, M., 2020. COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action. *The American Psychologist*. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/gkwme
Lunt, J., Hemming, S., Burton, K., Elander, J. and Baraniak, A., 2022. What workers can tell us about post-COVID workability. *Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England)*. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqac086
Macewan, S., Rahurkar, S., Tarver, W., Eiterman, L., Melnyk, H., Olvera, R., Eramo, J., Teuschler, L., Gaughan, A., Rush, L., Stanwick, S., Burpee, S., McConnell, E., Schamess, A. and McAlearney, A., 2024. The Impact of Long COVID on Employment and Well-Being: A Qualitative Study of Patient Perspectives. *Journal of General Internal Medicine*, 40, pp. 1070-1077. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11606-024-09062-5
Nagra, G., Ezeugwu, V., Bostick, G., Branton, E., Dennett, L., Drake, K., Durand-Moreau, Q., Guptill, C., Hall, M., Ho, C., Hung, P., Khan, A., Lam, G., Nowrouzi-Kia, B. and Gross, D., 2024. Return-to-work for people living with long COVID: A scoping review of interventions and recommendations. *PLOS ONE*, 20. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0321891
National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 2022. *COVID-19 rapid guideline: managing the long-term effects of COVID-19*. London: NICE.
Office for National Statistics, 2023. *Prevalence of ongoing symptoms following coronavirus (COVID-19) infection in the UK*. London: ONS.
Parkin, A., Rayner, C., Mir, G. and O’Connor, R., 2024. Vocational rehabilitation for Long Covid: a roadmap for recovery. *Occupational Medicine*, 74(4), pp. 262-265. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqae020
Shaw, W., Main, C., Findley, P., Collie, A., Kristman, V. and Gross, D., 2020. Opening the Workplace After COVID-19: What Lessons Can be Learned from Return-to-Work Research? *Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation*, 30, pp. 299-302. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10926-020-09908-9
Spencer, L., Hendry, A., Makanjuola, A., Anthony, B., Davies, J., Pisavadia, K., Hughes, D., Fitzsimmons, D., Wilkinson, C., Edwards, R., Lewis, R., Cooper, A. and Edwards, A., 2023. What interventions or best practice are there to support people with Long COVID, or similar post-viral conditions or conditions characterised by fatigue, to return to normal activities: a rapid review. *medRxiv*. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.24.23284947
Stelson, E., Dash, D., McCorkell, L., Wilson, C., Assaf, G., Re’em, Y. and Wei, H., 2023. Return-to-work with long COVID: An Episodic Disability and Total Worker Health® analysis. *Social Science & Medicine*, 338, pp. 116336. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2023.116336
Tan, K. and Koh, D., 2023. Long COVID—Challenges in diagnosis and managing return-to-work. *Journal of Occupational Health*, 65. https://doi.org/10.1002/1348-9585.12401
Thompson, S., 2023. Employers must provide better support to workers with long covid. *BMJ*, 381. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p800
Torrance, N., MacIver, E., Adams, N., Skåtun, D., Scott, N., Kennedy, C., Douglas, F., Hernandez-Santiago, V. and Grant, A., 2023. Lived experience of work and long COVID in healthcare staff. *Occupational Medicine (Oxford, England)*, 74, pp. 78-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqad117
Wei, H., Daniels, S., Wiggans, R., Coleman, A., Bramwell, D., McElvenny, D., Forde, D. and Van Tongeren, M., 2025. Long COVID and work in the UK: challenges, support and perspectives. *Archives of Public Health*, 83. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13690-025-01777-z
World Health Organization, 2021. *A clinical case definition of post COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus*. Geneva: WHO.
Zeraatkar, D., Ling, M., Kirsh, S., Jassal, T., Pitre, T., Chakraborty, S., Turner, T., Turkstra, L., McIntyre, R., Izcovich, A., Mbuagbaw, L., Agoritsas, T., Flottorp, S., Garner, P., Couban, R. and Busse, J., 2025. Interventions for the management of post-COVID-19 condition (long COVID): protocol for a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. *BMJ Open*, 15. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2024-086407
