Prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition among healthcare workers: a systematic review

Abstract

Introduction  Healthcare workers (HCWs) have experienced a high incidence of COVID-19, making them vulnerable to post-COVID-19 condition, characterized by persistent symptoms following the acute phase.

Objective  To estimate the prevalence and characterize the symptoms of post-COVID-19 condition among HCWs.

Methods  A systematic review of observational studies, registered in PROSPERO (CRD42023454818), covering seven databases. Methodological quality was assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, and risk of bias was evaluated using the Joanna Briggs Institute tool, with independent assessment by two reviewers.

Results  Thirty-two studies were included, totaling 34,783 workers. The prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition across the studies ranged from 12% to 95%. Post-COVID-19 condition manifests in a multisystemic manner, with symptoms such as cognitive dysfunction, fatigue, dyspnea, chronic pain, and psychosocial disorders being particularly prominent. Factors such as female sex, severity of the initial infection, comorbidities, and reinfection increase the risk of developing the condition, while vaccination exerted a protective effect.

Conclusion  Post-COVID-19 condition among HCWs is common and requires active screening protocols, continuous epidemiological surveillance, and interdisciplinary rehabilitation programs to ensure the retention of the healthcare workforce.

Keywords:
COVID-19; Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome; Health Personnel; Prevalence; Systematic Review; Occupational Health

Resumo

Introdução  Trabalhadores da saúde apresentaram alta ocorrência de covid-19, tornando-os vulneráveis à condição pós-covid-19, caracterizada pela persistência de sintomas após a fase aguda.

Objetivo  Estimar a prevalência e caracterizar os sintomas da condição pós-covid-19 em trabalhadores da saúde.

Métodos  Revisão sistemática de estudos observacionais, registrada no PROSPERO (CRD42023454818), abrangendo sete bases de dados. A qualidade metodológica foi avaliada pela Newcastle-Ottawa Scale e o risco de viés por meio da ferramenta do Joanna Briggs Institute, com avaliação independente por dois revisores.

Resultados  Foram incluídos 32 estudos, totalizando 34.783 trabalhadores. A prevalência da condição pós-covid-19 entre as investigações oscilou entre 12% e 95%. A condição pós-covid-19 manifesta-se de forma multissistêmica, destacando-se sintomas como disfunções cognitivas, fadiga, dispneia, dores crônicas e transtornos psicossociais. Fatores como sexo feminino, gravidade da infecção inicial, comorbidades e reinfecções aumentam o risco de desenvolvimento do agravo, enquanto a vacinação exerceu efeito protetor.

Conclusão  A condição pós-covid-19 em trabalhadores da saúde é frequente e exige protocolos de triagem ativa, vigilância epidemiológica contínua e programas de reabilitação interdisciplinar para garantir a manutenção da força de trabalho em saúde.

Palavras-chave:
Covid-19; Síndrome de Pós-covid-19 Aguda; Pessoal de Saúde; Prevalência; Revisão Sistemática; Saúde do Trabalhador

Introduction

The COVID-19 pandemic has increased the risk of illness among healthcare workers, who are exposed to the virus in the course of their daily duties. In Brazil, this vulnerability was highlighted by the reporting of 35,545 cases of the disease recorded as serious work-related accidents in the Notifiable Diseases Information System in 2020 and 2021¹. There was a concentration of cases among women (79.0%), Black and mixed-race workers (41.4%), and nursing professionals, who accounted for 70.3% of all reported cases¹. This scenario highlights a socially constructed vulnerability, the repercussions of which extend beyond the acute phase of infection.

Following the introduction of vaccines, although there has been a reduction in incidence, mortality, and hospitalization rates, the disease remains in circulation globally². In Brazil, data for the year 2024 indicate the persistence of community transmission, with cycles of increased incidence associated with new SARS-CoV-2 variants³. The persistence of the disease is accompanied by underreporting resulting from structural barriers to access to testing and early diagnosis among vulnerable groups. This context underscores that COVID-19 remains a significant public health problem.

After recovering from COVID-19, some people develop what is known as post-COVID-19 condition, which the World Health Organization (WHO) has defined as a set of symptoms that generally begin within three months of the onset of the initial illness and persist for at least two months and cannot be explained by an alternative diagnosis⁴. The prevalence of persistent symptoms following SARS-CoV-2 infection ranges from 10% to 30% in non-hospitalized cases, reaching 50% to 70% among hospitalized individuals and 10% to 12% among those who have been vaccinated⁵. A meta-analysis involving more than 735,000 participants indicated that, over an average follow-up period of 126 days, 45% of COVID-19 survivors had at least one unresolved symptom⁶.

In Europe, it is estimated that 17 million people may have developed post-COVID-19 condition during the first two years of the pandemic⁷. More than 200 symptoms have been reported as possible manifestations of this syndrome, primarily affecting the respiratory, neurological, and psychological systems⁵. Despite the availability of reliable methods for diagnosing COVID-19, such as molecular testing, imaging studies, and rapid serological and antigen tests⁸, due to the diversity of symptoms and the lack of knowledge about the underlying mechanisms, the diagnosis of post-COVID-19 has relied on imprecise, non-standardized diagnostic methods based on the exclusion of other causes¹¹,¹².

Many healthcare workers are exposed to occupational risks, such as direct exposure to the virus without adequate protection, ineffective infection control, and work overload. These factors, that, combined with preexisting comorbidities, considerably increase their susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2 infection¹³ and, consequently, increase the risk of developing post-COVID-19 conditions¹⁴,¹⁵. Furthermore, this group of workers is heterogeneous in terms of characteristics such as socioeconomic status, race, and gender, which are directly linked to morbidity and mortality¹⁶-¹⁸.

However, most of the available research focuses on the general population, highlighting a gap in studies that specifically investigate the intersection between working conditions and health impacts, particularly regarding healthcare workers. Furthermore, post-COVID-19 conditions among healthcare workers affect the availability of professionals in healthcare services. Therefore, investigating and understanding this condition is crucial for developing strategies to improve these professionals’ quality of life and ensure the necessary care for their recovery¹⁵.

The scarcity of systematic information on the long-term impacts of the disease hinders formal recognition of the condition and, consequently, compromises the development of public policies aimed at the diagnosis, treatment, and appropriate follow-up of these workers¹⁹. Added to this is the instability of institutional sources that could reliably assess the effects of the pandemic among healthcare workers, exacerbating the invisibility of its sequelae and the implications for the functioning of services²⁰. In this context, there is an urgent need to promote studies that comprehensively investigate the effects of post-COVID-19 condition, considering everything from clinical aspects, such as persistent symptoms and mental health disorders, to the impacts on quality of life and the workforce in healthcare institutions²¹.

Considering the above, the objective of this systematic review is to estimate the prevalence and characterize the symptoms of post-COVID-19 condition among healthcare workers.

Methods

Registration and Protocol

This is a systematic review, whose protocol was developed in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P) and registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42023454818).

Eligibility Criteria

The research question was: “What is the prevalence of post-COVID-19 symptoms among healthcare workers?” To answer this question and guide the literature search, the CoCoPop acronym (Condition, Context, Population) was used, a framework recommended for prevalence reviews. Thus, the following components were defined: Condition, corresponding to post-COVID-19 conditions; Context, characterized by work in healthcare settings; and Population, consisting of healthcare workers.

The eligibility criteria were: studies addressing the post-COVID-19 condition; no language restrictions; study participants aged 18 years or older; studies with a sample of healthcare workers; and observational studies (cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional). The exclusion criteria were: study participants under 18 years of age; review studies (regardless of the type of review); intervention studies; case reports; book chapters; and conference abstracts.

Information Sources

The search for studies was conducted in the Latin American and Caribbean Health Sciences Literature (LILACS), Medline/PubMed, Web of Science, PsycNET, Scopus, and Embase databases. In addition, Google Scholar (the first 100 results) was used as a source of gray literature, and the reference lists of the included studies were consulted as part of a manual search. Database research was conducted on July 28, 2025.

Search Strategy

The search terms were defined based on the CoCoPop acronym. For the bibliographic databases, the following strategy was used: “Post-Acute COVID-19 Syndrome” OR “Long COVID” OR “Post-COVID Conditions” AND “Signs and Symptoms” OR “Clinical manifestations.” For Google Scholar, the following search terms were used: “Prevalence of ‘long COVID’ symptoms among ‘healthcare workers’.” There were no restrictions regarding the year or period of publication, language, or region where the study was conducted.

Study Selection

After removing duplicate studies using the online software Rayyan®, Phase I of the selection process involved reviewing the titles and abstracts. In Phase II, the studies were read in full. Both selection phases were conducted independently by two reviewers (KOM and LYSP), and in the event of a disagreement, three other reviewers (CRNL, MMCA, TAS) collaborated to resolve the disagreement.

Data Collection

Two independent reviewers (KOM and LYSP) extracted data from the included studies and entered them into Google Sheets™. For this purpose, a standardized form was developed in advance on this platform; filling it out individually allowed for the systematic collection of relevant information after reading each selected article in its entirety.

Once this step was completed, the individual forms were compared to verify consistency. Discrepancies identified between the reviewers were resolved by consensus and, when necessary, through the mediation of a third senior reviewer (MMCA), resulting in a single, consolidated database. There was no need to contact the original authors of the included studies, since all relevant information was fully available in the published texts and their respective supplementary materials.

Data List

The data included details on the publication (author; year of publication; country; sample size), participants (age; sex), study method, and outcome (main symptoms, duration of symptoms, prevalence of symptoms).

Risk of bias

Two independent reviewers (KOM and LYSP) assessed methodological quality using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS), which is divided into three sections (selection, comparability, and outcome) for cross-sectional and cohort studies and three sections for case-control studies (selection, comparability, and exposure). To classify methodological quality, we followed the recommendation by Sharmin et al.²², who consider three or four stars to indicate good methodological quality in the selection dimension, one or two stars in the comparability dimension, and two or three stars in the outcome dimension.

To determine the risk of bias in the studies, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) Critical Appraisal checklist, specific to observational studies, was used. The classification of the articles followed the same methodology used by Lira et al.²³, adopting the following criteria: “high risk of bias” corresponds to “yes” scores between 0% and 49%; “moderate risk of bias” to scores between 50% and 69%; and “low risk of bias” to scores of 70% or higher. The assessment was conducted independently by two reviewers, and in the event of a conflict, a third reviewer (MMCA) was consulted.

Summary of Results

The synthesis of results was conducted descriptively, using Google Sheets™ spreadsheets to process and organize the information. Absolute and relative frequencies were calculated to characterize the studies and the population. A meta-analysis in this review was deemed methodologically unfeasible due to the high heterogeneity identified in the included studies regarding clinical and methodological issues, as well as variations in the definitions of post-COVID-19 condition, follow-up periods, and measurement instruments. Thus, in accordance with PRISMA recommendations, a narrative synthesis was chosen.

Results

Study Selection

A total of 4,478 records were retrieved from the six databases searched, plus the gray literature; of these, 1,226 duplicates were removed. Screening of titles and abstracts resulted in the exclusion of 3,015 records that did not meet the inclusion criteria. Next, 237 articles were selected for full-text screening, of which 24 initially met the inclusion criteria. Additionally, the snowballing technique was applied based on an analysis of the reference lists of these studies, which allowed for the identification and inclusion of eight more studies that strictly met the study’s requirements. Thus, the final sample for this systematic review totaled 32 studies¹⁵,²⁴. The study selection process is summarized in the PRISMA flowchart (Figure 1).

Figure 1
Flowchart of the study selection process

Characteristics of the included studies

Studies published from 2021²⁶,³⁵,³⁹,⁴²,⁵¹ to 2025³¹,³⁷ were included. Regarding language, most studies were published in English (n = 22), followed by Portuguese (n = 10)³⁶,³⁷,⁵⁰,⁵²,⁵⁴, Spanish⁴⁵,⁴⁷, Russian²⁵, Korean⁴³, and German³⁸.

Most of the studies were conducted on the European continent (n = 13), in countries such as Denmark²⁶, Italy³⁰,⁵¹, France⁴⁰,⁴², the United Kingdom³⁵,⁴⁹, Spain²⁸,⁴⁵,⁴⁶, Sweden³⁹, and Germany³⁸,⁴⁴. Latin America accounted for nine studies, seven of which were in Brazil¹⁵,³³,³⁶,³⁷,⁵⁰,⁵²,⁵⁴, one in Mexico²⁹, and one in Cuba⁴⁷. In Asia, six studies were conducted (18.7%), covering Pakistan²⁴, India⁴⁸, South Korea⁴³, Taiwan³¹, Bangladesh³², and Iran³⁴. Two studies were conducted in Eurasia (Turkey⁴¹; Russia²⁵, while the remaining two were conducted in South Africa⁵³ and Canada²⁷.

Regarding study design, 18 were cross-sectional²⁴,²⁸, 11 were cohort studies²⁵,²⁶,³¹ and three were case-control studies¹⁵,²⁷,⁴⁶.

The population analyzed in this review consisted of 34,783 healthcare workers, with a predominance of females (n = 25,299). The participants’ ages ranged from 18 years²⁵,⁵³,⁴⁷ to 91 years⁴². In all included studies, the diagnosis of COVID-19 was confirmed via polymerase chain reaction (PCR) testing, ensuring uniformity in the inclusion criteria for participants.

Of the 32 included studies, 10 had a moderate risk of bias²⁴,²⁵,³³ and 22 had a low risk of bias. The factors that most contributed to an increased risk of bias included the failure to identify and adequately address confounding variables, as well as insufficient descriptions of participant follow-up in longitudinal designs.

Regarding methodological quality, 14 studies demonstrated good quality. In contrast, 10 studies were rated as having moderate quality³³,³⁴,³⁷,⁴⁰,⁴³,⁴⁵,⁴⁷ and eight studies as having low quality²⁴,²⁵,²⁹,³⁵,³⁶,⁴¹,⁵³,⁵⁴. The “moderate” classification stemmed primarily from the absence of statistical adjustment in the comparability domain (lack of control for confounding factors) or the absence of an adequate control group. In turn, the studies of low methodological quality exhibited more substantial limitations: in addition to failing to adjust the data for potential confounders, they presented critical weaknesses in the selection domain, marked by the frequent use of non-representative convenience samples and the reporting of high, unjustified non-response rates.

Most of the 32 studies detailed the occupational categories of healthcare workers, revealing a heterogeneous composition. The nursing staff (nurses, technicians, and aides) represented the predominant group, ranging from 35.1%³⁰ to 60.4%³⁸. The group of medical professionals was also significant, with a higher concentration in specific studies, such as those by Romero-Rodríguez, et al.⁴⁶, in which they accounted for 61.6% of the participants. Other categories identified included physical therapists, psychologists, speech-language pathologists, nutritionists, pharmacists, and administrative staff. Additionally, four studies were designed to focus exclusively on the nursing category³⁴,³⁶,⁴³,⁵⁰.

Symptoms characterization of post-COVID-19 condition

The most prominent and consistently cited group of symptoms, although with wide variation, is cognitive and neurological dysfunction, which encompasses problems with memory, reasoning, and concentration. The prevalence of these symptoms ranged from 10.7%⁴¹ to 98.8%²⁸.

The prevalence of fatigue or weakness ranged from 4.6%³⁷ to 78.9%⁴⁶. In a short-term follow-up study, symptoms of fatigue and weakness persisted in 38.5% of healthcare workers in Russia during the third month after infection, including cases classified as mild or moderate²⁵.

The third most common group of symptoms involves pain, including headache, myalgia, and arthralgia. The prevalence of pain-related symptoms varied across the included studies. For arthralgia, the figures ranged from 5.0%²⁵ to 63.6%⁴¹. As for headache, the prevalence ranged from 1.1%²⁵ to 69.7%⁴⁶. Chronic headaches were observed in 56.3% of healthcare workers⁵⁴, and muscle, joint, or spinal pain was reported by 23.1% of healthcare workers in Russia²⁵.

The prevalence of dyspnea showed great variability, influenced by whether assessment was conducted during exertion versus at rest. A prevalence of 3.7% was observed for shortness of breath in a study of South Korean nurses⁴³, which was close to the 3.8% prevalence of persistent dyspnea at rest among healthcare workers in Spain⁴⁶; a prevalence of 67.7% was found for difficulty breathing when climbing stairs among nurses in South Korea⁴³.

Finally, symptoms of anxiety and sleep disorders constituted the fifth most frequent group of manifestations, underscoring the psychosocial impact of post-COVID-19 conditions. The prevalence of these symptoms ranged from 6.3% for insomnia⁴⁸ to 84.5% for anxiety⁵⁴. Sleep disturbances were reported by 50.3% of South Korean nurses⁴³, and anxiety by 22.0% of nursing professionals in a Brazilian study⁵⁰.

Associated Factors

Among the 32 studies included in this review, female sex was the main factor associated with post-COVID-19 condition. Studies conducted with healthcare workers in Europe, such as that by Haller et al.³⁸, identified a higher prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition symptoms among women compared to men. Similar results were observed in studies conducted in Brazil, in which Marra et al.¹⁵ and Vasconcelos et al.⁵⁰ reported a statistically significant association between female sex and the occurrence of post-COVID-19 condition, especially among nursing professionals.

The severity of the infection during the acute phase emerged as another recurring associated factor, being reported in 15.6% of the studies included in this review. In a study conducted in Canada by Carazo et al.²⁷, a higher frequency of post-COVID-19 condition was observed among workers who experienced a greater number of symptoms during the initial phase of the disease. Similarly, studies conducted in Germany³⁸ and Brazil¹⁵ reported an association between hospitalization or a more prolonged clinical course during the acute phase and a higher incidence of post-COVID-19 symptoms. This pattern was also identified in the Spanish study by Rey Samper et al.⁴⁵.

The presence of preexisting comorbidities was identified as an associated factor in 21.9% of the studies analyzed. Obesity was associated with post-COVID-19 condition among healthcare workers in European³⁸,⁵¹ and Brazilian¹⁵ studies. Chronic respiratory diseases and metabolic conditions were also reported to be associated with persistent symptoms in investigations conducted in different geographic contexts, including Europe and South Asia³²,⁴⁴.

Some studies also reported an association between post-COVID-19 condition and the occurrence of multiple episodes of SARS-CoV-2 infection. Healthcare workers who experienced two or more episodes of COVID-19 during the pandemic reported a higher frequency of persistent symptoms, as described by Marra et al.¹⁵ and supported by data from Cegolon et al.³⁰ on the impact of reinfection on the chronicity of the condition.

Regarding vaccination status, 4 out of 32 studies indicated an association between prior vaccination and a lower incidence of post-COVID-19 conditions. This association was observed in studies conducted by Senjam et al.⁴⁸ in India, in the Italian study by Cegolon et al.³⁰, as well as in the Brazilian study by Marra et al.¹⁵ and in the study by Chen, Chiu & Chen³¹. However, these studies also reported the presence of persistent symptoms among vaccinated healthcare workers.

Discussion

The prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition among healthcare workers included in this review ranged from 12% to 95%, a range that should not be interpreted solely as methodological weakness in the primary studies, but rather as an expression of the multisystemic and heterogeneous nature of the condition, whose manifestations vary according to viral load, the SARS-CoV-2 variant, immunological status, and the follow-up period adopted in each study⁵,⁵⁶, as well as individual characteristics that the studies in this review identified as associated with the condition, such as female sex, obesity, and the presence of comorbidities.

The identified clinical and methodological heterogeneity, with follow-up periods ranging from four weeks to 12 months and distinct operational definitions of the condition, limited the ability to conduct a meta-analysis and should be considered when interpreting the results. Studies classified as having low methodological quality according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (one-quarter of the included studies) generally featured non-representative convenience samples and high non-response rates, which may contribute to the variation in estimates.

Even when the analysis is restricted to higher-quality studies, the prevalence of the condition remains significant, indicating an occupational health problem of great magnitude. This finding gains relevance when compared with the data available for the general population. Systematic reviews with meta-analyses estimate a combined prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition at around 42.5% (95% CI: 36.0%; 49.3%) in the general population, based on 43 studies and 367,236 participants⁵⁷, while updated global estimates indicate an average prevalence of 37% to 38% in publications from 2021 to 2023, with a wide range from 1% to 92% depending on the definition used, the follow-up period, and the characteristics of the study population⁵⁸.

In the Brazilian context, a multicenter study with 1,907 participants identified post-COVID-19 condition in 67% of participants, with fatigue (60%) and difficulty concentrating (55%) as the most prevalent symptoms⁵⁹. A comparison of these data with the findings of this review suggests that healthcare workers have prevalence rates equal to or higher than those of the general population—a pattern that is biologically and socially plausible given their repeated occupational exposure to SARS-CoV-2, the high risk of reinfection, and the strenuous working conditions that characterize this professional category⁶⁰,⁶¹.

The predominantly female demographic profile observed in the studies included in this review goes beyond immunological and hormonal explanations. Female healthcare workers often juggle multiple work shifts, combining their professional activities with domestic and caregiving responsibilities⁶⁰,⁶¹. This chronic exhaustion impairs recovery during the acute phase of infection and constitutes a social determinant of symptom chronicity, as evidenced by a prospective cohort study that revealed an association between pre-infection occupational stressors, such as high work demands, low control over activities, and a lack of social support, and the development of post-COVID-19 condition among workers⁶².

Studies conducted with Brazilian healthcare workers during the pre-pandemic period already showed prevalences of common mental disorders ranging from 16.0% to 46.9%, with a greater impact among women, for whom the combination of high psychological demands, low control over work, and domestic overload significantly increased vulnerability to mental illness⁶⁰. The post-COVID-19 condition, therefore, did not affect a workforce in perfect health: it overlapped with a historically documented process of occupational burnout, in which healthcare workers, especially those working under conditions of greater precariousness and inequality, faced the greatest disadvantages in terms of healthcare work conditions and characteristics, thereby exacerbating preexisting vulnerabilities⁶¹,⁶³.

This overlap between pre-existing occupational burnout and the psychiatric sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection is particularly evident in the psychosocial disorders identified in this review. Anxiety and sleep disorders were among the most frequent manifestations, with prevalences ranging from 6.3% to 84.5% for anxiety²⁴,²⁹,³¹,³⁴,⁵³,⁴²,⁵⁰,⁵⁴ and from 3.1% to 71.1% for sleep disorders among the healthcare workers studied²⁵,²⁸,³³,³⁵,³⁹,⁴⁰,⁵³,⁴³,⁴⁷,⁴⁹. This profile does not represent an isolated or entirely new phenomenon: studies conducted with Brazilian healthcare workers during the pre-pandemic period had already documented significant prevalences of common mental disorders in this group, associated with poor working conditions, work overload, and low professional rewards⁶⁰,⁶¹.

The COVID-19 pandemic has compounded this preexisting vulnerability with simultaneous exposure to biological risk, the grief of patients and colleagues, and the worsening of working conditions, creating a scenario of overlapping factors contributing to mental illness that makes it methodologically difficult and clinically irrelevant to separate the sequelae of SARS-CoV-2 infection from the structural occupational burnout that was already affecting this workforce⁶³. The bidirectional relationship between psychological distress and the persistence of physical symptoms reinforces the need for a rehabilitative approach that considers the psychosocial context and working conditions as central determinants of recovery⁵.

Cognitive dysfunctions, including impairments in memory, concentration, and reasoning, identified as the most prevalent symptoms in this review, warrant special attention in the context of healthcare work. Unlike other occupations, healthcare practice requires technical precision, clinical reasoning, and decision-making in high-stakes environments, where cognitive impairments increase the likelihood of errors and adverse events⁶⁴. The persistence of cognitive lapses among professionals working under these conditions represents not only an individual health problem but also a systemic risk to patient safety. The persistence of cognitive dysfunction in healthcare workers who return to work after SARS-CoV-2 infection is documented in the literature, with a systematic review involving more than 14 million participants confirming that memory deficits, difficulty concentrating, and slowed thinking are significantly more prevalent among individuals with a history of infection with the virus, regardless of the severity of the acute illness⁶⁵.

When these professionals remain on the job without taking leave or having their duties adjusted, the phenomenon of presenteeism occurs, defined as an individual continuing to perform occupational activities without being in optimal physical or emotional health, with negative consequences for productivity and the quality-of-care provided⁶⁶. In the healthcare context, this phenomenon is particularly insidious because it masks the actual workforce shortage and silently compromises patient safety; it has been documented among healthcare workers with post-COVID-19 condition in Canada, where the syndrome was associated with a 26.7% higher prevalence of poor work functioning (95%CI: 22.1%; 31.3%) and a 14.9% higher prevalence of reduced work capacity (95%CI: 11.6%; 18.2%) compared with infected workers who did not develop the condition⁶⁷.

Finally, the protection conferred by vaccination, evidenced by the reduced severity of persistent symptoms among vaccinated healthcare workers, reinforces the central role of healthcare workers as a priority group in immunization and occupational health policies. Given the magnitude of the problem, healthcare institutions need to move beyond individual symptomatic management and adopt comprehensive protection strategies: active screening for persistent post-infection symptoms, return-to-work protocols with functional assessment, interdisciplinary rehabilitation programs, and reorganization of workloads for recovering professionals⁶⁷.

The methodological heterogeneity identified in the primary studies further highlights the urgent need for diagnostic standardization and investment in longitudinal cohorts that allow for a more robust estimation of the impact of post-COVID-19 conditions on the work capacity and long-term health of this population.

Conclusion

This systematic review reinforces that the post-COVID-19 condition constitutes a complex, multisystemic health impairment for workers, rather than merely an isolated post-infectious event.

From the perspective of occupational health management and care, the results highlight the phenomenon of presenteeism and implicit risks to patient safety, since return to work often occurs without full functional recovery, especially in the cognitive domain. The overlap between manifestations of post-COVID-19 condition and symptoms of occupational burnout poses diagnostic challenges that can contribute to the trivialization of symptoms, underdiagnosis, and the perpetuation of illness, with a negative impact on productivity and the quality of care.

Given this scenario, it is recommended that healthcare institutions move beyond an exclusive focus on the acute phase of infection by implementing active screening protocols that include functional and neuropsychological assessments. Institutional policies must include interdisciplinary rehabilitation programs and strategies for a gradual return to work, tailored to individual limitations. For future research, we suggest standardizing case definitions and investing in longitudinal studies that allow for an understanding of the post-COVID-19 condition progression over time, as well as the impact of new SARS-CoV-2 variants on the healthcare workforce.

References

• ¹ Romano PH, Hillesheim D, Hallal ALC, Menegon FA, Menegon LS. COVID-19 in health workers: an ecological study from SINAN data, 2020-2021. Texto Contexto Enferm. 2023;32:e20220325. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-265X-TCE-2022-0325en
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-265X-TCE-2022-0325en
• ² World Health Organization. Disease outbreak news: COVID-19 - Global Situation. Geneva: WHO; 2025 [citado 11 maio 2026]. Disponível em: https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2025-DON572
  » https://www.who.int/emergencies/disease-outbreak-news/item/2025-DON572
• ³ Ministério da Saúde (BR). Boletim Epidemiológico: cenário epidemiológico da COVID-19, influenza e outros vírus respiratórios no Brasil: semana epidemiológica 1 a SE 52 de 2024. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2025 (Boletim Epidemiológico; vol. 56, n. 6).
• ⁴ World Health Organization. Post COVID-19 condition (long COVID). Geneva: WHO; 2025 [citado 14 maio 2026]. Disponível em: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/post-covid-19-condition- (long-covid)
  » https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/post-covid-19-condition- (long-covid)
• ⁵ Davis HE, McCorkell L, Vogel JM, Topol EJ. Long COVID: major findings, mechanisms and recommendations. Nat Rev Microbiol. 2023;21(3):133-46. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00846-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41579-022-00846-2
• ⁶ O'Mahoney LL, Routen A, Gillies C, Ekezie W, Welford A, Zhang A et al. The prevalence and long-term health effects of long COVID among hospitalised and non-hospitalised populations: a systematic review and meta-analysis. E Clin Med. 2022;55:101761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101762
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2022.101762
• ⁷ World Health Organization. At least 17 million people in the WHO European Region experienced long COVID in the first two years of the pandemic; millions may have to live with it for years to come. Geneva: WHO; 2022 [citado 14 mar 2026]. Disponível em: https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/13-09-2022-at-least-17-million-people-in-the-who-european-region-experienced-long-covid-in-the-first-two-years-of-the-pandemic--millions-may-have-to-live-with-it-for-years-to-come
  » https://www.who.int/europe/news/item/13-09-2022-at-least-17-million-people-in-the-who-european-region-experienced-long-covid-in-the-first-two-years-of-the-pandemic--millions-may-have-to-live-with-it-for-years-to-come
• ⁸ World Health Organization. Diagnostic testing for SARS-CoV-2. Geneva: WHO; 2020 [citado 14 mar 2026]. Disponível em: https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/diagnostic-testing-for-sars-cov-2
  » https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/diagnostic-testing-for-sars-cov-2
• ⁹ Nações Unidas Brasil. OPAS recomenda que pessoas com sintomas tenham prioridade para testes de COVID-19. Brasília: ONU Brasil; 2022 [citado 14 mar 2026]. Disponível em: https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/169017-opas-recomenda-que-pessoas-com-sintomas-tenham-prioridade-para-testes
  » https://brasil.un.org/pt-br/169017-opas-recomenda-que-pessoas-com-sintomas-tenham-prioridade-para-testes
• ¹⁰ Ministério da Saúde (BR). Guia de vigilância epidemiológica da COVID-19. Brasília: Ministério da Saúde; 2021 [citado 14 mar 2026]. Disponível em: https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/publicacoes/guias-e-manuais/2021/guia-de-vigilancia-epidemiologica-covid-19-3.pdf
  » https://www.gov.br/saude/pt-br/centrais-de-conteudo/publicacoes/guias-e-manuais/2021/guia-de-vigilancia-epidemiologica-covid-19-3.pdf
• ¹¹ Ward H, Flower B, Garcia PJ, Ong SWX, Altmann DM, Delaney B et al. Global surveillance, research, and collaboration needed to improve understanding and management of long COVID. Lancet. 2021;398(10316):2057-9. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736 (21)02444-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736 (21)02444-2
• ¹² Soriano JB, Murthy S, Marshall JC, Relan P, Diaz JV. A clinical case definition of post-COVID-19 condition by a Delphi consensus. Lancet Infect Dis. 2022;22(4):e102-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099 (21)00703-9
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/s1473-3099 (21)00703-9
• ¹³ Helioterio MC, Lopes FQRS, Sousa CC, Souza FO, Pinho SP, Sousa FNF et al. COVID-19: por que a proteção de trabalhadores e trabalhadoras da saúde é prioritária no combate à pandemia? Trab Educ Saude. 2020;18(3):e00289121. https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-7746-sol00289
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1981-7746-sol00289
• ¹⁴ Gómez-Ochoa SA, Franco OH, Rojas LZ, Raguindin PF, Roa-Díaz ZM, Wyssmann BM et al. COVID-19 in health-care workers: a living systematic review and meta-analysis of prevalence, risk factors, clinical characteristics, and outcomes. Am J Epidemiol. 2021;190(1):161-75. https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa191
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/aje/kwaa191
• ¹⁵ Marra AR, Sampaio VS, Ozahata MC, Silva RLP, Brito A, Bragatte M et al. Risk factors for long COVID among healthcare workers, Brazil, 2020-2022. medRxiv. 2023. https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.03.22284043
  » https://doi.org/10.1101/2023.01.03.22284043
• ¹⁶ Albuquerque MFPM, Souza WV, Montarroyos UR, Pereira CR, Braga C, Araújo TVB et al. Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection among front-line healthcare workers in Northeast Brazil: a respondent-driven sampling approach. BMJ Open. 2022;12(3):e058369. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058369
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058369
• ¹⁷ Estrela FM, Soares CFS, Cruz MA, Silva AF, Santos JRL, Moreira TMO et al. Pandemia da COVID-19: refletindo as vulnerabilidades à luz do gênero, raça e classe. Cienc Saúde Colet. 2020;25(9):3431-6. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232020259.14052020
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232020259.14052020
• ¹⁸ Silva GDM, Souza AA, Castro MSM, Miranda WD, Jardim LL, Sousa RP. Influência da desigualdade socioeconômica na distribuição das internações e dos óbitos por COVID-19 em municípios brasileiros, 2020: um estudo ecológico. Epidemiol Serv Saúde. 2023;32(1):e2022303. https://doi.org/10.1590/S2237-96222023000100021
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S2237-96222023000100021
• ¹⁹ Batista KBC, Fernandez MV, Barberia LG, Silva ET, Pedi VD, Pontes BMLM et al. Panorama da COVID longa no Brasil: análise preliminar de um inquérito para pensar políticas de saúde. Cad Saúde Pública. 2024;40(4):e00094623. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XPT094623
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311XPT094623
• ²⁰ Machado MH, Coelho MCR, Pereira EJ, Telles AO, Neto JJS, Neto FRGX et al. Condições de trabalho e biossegurança dos profissionais de saúde e trabalhadores invisíveis da saúde no contexto da COVID-19 no Brasil. Cienc Saude Colet. 2023;28(10):2809-21. https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320232810.10072023
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320232810.10072023
• ²¹ Santos MRS, Silva KK, Conceição EH, Barbosa DAM, Gomes ALV. Integrative review: impact of long COVID on the quality of life and health status of healthcare workers: what does the literature tell us? Res Soc Dev. 2024;13(2):e13413245129. https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v13i2.45129
  » https://doi.org/10.33448/rsd-v13i2.45129
• ²² Sharmin S, Kypri K, Khanam M, Wadolowski M, Bruno R, Mattick RP. Parental supply of alcohol in childhood and risky drinking in adolescence: systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2017;14(3):287. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030287
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph14030287
• ²³ Lira CRN, Akutsu RC, Coelho LG, Silva KBB, Pitangueira JCD, Zandonadi RP et al. Influence of occupational stress on the body mass index of hospital workers: a systematic review. Nutrients. 2023;15(18):3944. https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15183944
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/nu15183944
• ²⁴ Arshad A, Arshad I, Humayun M, Syed A, Elmorsy E, Shah SSH et al. Assessment of post-COVID-19 clinical manifestations after recovery in healthcare professionals. Ann Clin Anal Med. 2022;13(5):579-82. https://doi.org/10.4328/ACAM.21042
  » https://doi.org/10.4328/ACAM.21042
• ²⁵ Berdiugina OV. Post-COVID-19 syndrome: a discussion of onset timing. Russ J Infect Immun. 2024;14(3):476-82. https://doi.org/10.15789/2220-7619-PCS-16766
  » https://doi.org/10.15789/2220-7619-PCS-16766
• ²⁶ Bliddal S, Banasik K, Pedersen OB, Nissen J, Cantwell L, Schwinn M et al. Acute and persistent symptoms in non-hospitalized PCR-confirmed COVID-19 patients. Sci Rep. 2021;11(1):13153. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92045-x
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-92045-x
• ²⁷ Carazo S, Skowronski DM, Laforce R, Talbot D, Falcone EL, Laliberté D et al. Physical, psychological, and cognitive profile of post-COVID conditions in healthcare workers, Quebec, Canada. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2022;9(8):ofac386. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac386
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofac386
• ²⁸ Carmona-Cervelló M, León-Gómez BB, Dacosta-Aguayo R, Lamonja-Vicente N, Montero-Alía P, Molist G et al. Long COVID: cognitive, balance, and retina manifestations. Front Med. 2024;11:1399145. https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1399145
  » https://doi.org/10.3389/fmed.2024.1399145
• ²⁹ Cázares-Lara JO, Ordinola-Navarro A, Carmona-Aguilera Z, Ramirez-Hinojosa JP, Lopez-Vejar C, Lopez-Luis BA et al. Main predictors of decreasing in quality of life in patients with post-COVID-19: a cross-sectional study. Value Health Reg Issues. 2025;45:101039. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101039
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.vhri.2024.101039
• ³⁰ Cegolon L, Mauro M, Sansone D, Tassinari A, Gobba FM, Modenese A et al. A multi-center study investigating long COVID-19 in healthcare workers from north-eastern Italy: prevalence, risk factors and the impact of pre-existing humoral immunity: ORCHESTRA Project. Vaccines. 2023;11(12):1769. https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11121769
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/vaccines11121769
• ³¹ Chen YC, Chiu CH, Chen CJ. Neurological and psychiatric aspects of long COVID among vaccinated healthcare workers: an assessment of prevalence and reporting biases. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2025;58(6);670-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2025.06.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmii.2025.06.002
• ³² Chowdhury AA, Ahmed MS, Abdullah ABM, Banerjee SK, Malik FTN, Choudhury SR et al. Long term health consequences as post COVID-19 sequel and their association with renal, cardiac and metabolic risk factors among health care workers in Bangladesh. Kidney Int Rep. 2024;9(4 Suppl):S208. Disponível em: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ekir.2024.02.425
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ekir.2024.02.425
• ³³ D'Ávila KG, Monair LR, Dantas LDP, Freitas AA, Loureiro MM, Bonamigo RR et al. Decrease in health-related quality of life and post-COVID-19 syndrome in health care workers after SARS-CoV-2 infection: a cohort study. J Occup Environ Med. 2023;65(1):e1-e3. https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002727
  » https://doi.org/10.1097/JOM.0000000000002727
• ³⁴ Etemad K, Hatami H, Nikpeyma M, Mowla F, Atatalab F. Long-term complications of COVID-19 in nursing staff: a retrospective longitudinal study. Arch Acad Emerg Med. 2023;11(1):e17. https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1785
  » https://doi.org/10.22037/aaem.v11i1.1785
• ³⁵ Gaber TAZK, Ashish A, Unsworth A. Persistent post-covid symptoms in healthcare workers. Occup Med. 2021;71(3):144-6. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab043
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqab043
• ³⁶ Gazzoni MS, Brustolin AM, Kessler M, Manfredini CS, Thumé E, Zaions APDRE. Prevalência de COVID-19 e sintomas pós-infeção entre os profissionais de enfermagem na atenção primária à saúde. Rev Enferm Ref. 2024;6(3):1-9. https://doi.org/10.12707/rvi23.129.33554
  » https://doi.org/10.12707/rvi23.129.33554
• ³⁷ Grígolo ASL, Krepki AFC, Pereira E, Avais LS, Muller EV, Waldman EA et al. Limitações de atividades diárias em trabalhadores de saúde adultos jovens e de meia idade nas condições pós COVID-19. Contr Cienc Soc. 2025;18(2):e15260. https://doi.org/10.55905/revconv.18n.2-078
  » https://doi.org/10.55905/revconv.18n.2-078
• ³⁸ Haller J, Kocalevent RD, Nienhaus A, Peters C, Bergelt C, Koch-Gromus U. Anhaltende fatigue als folge einer COVID-19-infektion bei beschäftigten im gesundheitswesen: risikofaktoren und auswirkungen auf die lebensqualität. Bund Ges Gesund. 2022;65:471-80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-022-03511-4
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s00103-022-03511-4
• ³⁹ Havervall S, Rosell A, Phillipson M, Mangsbo SM, Nilsson P, Hober S et al. Symptoms and functional impairment assessed 8 months after mild COVID-19 among health care workers. JAMA. 2021;325(19):2015-6. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.5612
  » https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2021.5612
• ⁴⁰ Horn M, Wathelet M, Amad A, Martignène N, Lathiere T, Khelfaoui K et al. Persistent physical symptoms after COVID-19 infection and the risk of Somatic Symptom Disorder. J Psychosom Res. 2023;166:111172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111172
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpsychores.2023.111172
• ⁴¹ Kaplan M, Çamurcu AA, Erol S. Post-Coronavirus Disease-2019 syndrome in healthcare workers. Mediterr J Infect Microbes Antimicrob. 2022;11(1):16-16. https://doi.org/10.4274/mjima.galenos.2021.2021.16
  » https://doi.org/10.4274/mjima.galenos.2021.2021.16
• ⁴² Messin L, Puyraveau M, Benabdallah Y, Lepiller Q, Gendrin V, Zayet S et al. COVEVOL: natural evolution at 6 months of COVID-19. Viruses. 2021;13(11):2151. https://doi.org/10.3390/v13112151
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/v13112151
• ⁴³ Park GE, Park YH. Long COVID symptoms and associated factors in registered nurses with COVID-19. J Korean Acad Soc Nurs Educ. 2024;30(1):49-60. https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2024.30.1.49
  » https://doi.org/10.5977/jkasne.2024.30.1.49
• ⁴⁴ Peters C, Dulon M, Westermann C, Kozak A, Nienhaus A. Long-term effects of COVID-19 on workers in health and social services in Germany. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(12):6983. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19126983
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19126983
• ⁴⁵ Rey Samper I, Marco-García JI, Mesonero-de la Penã B, Mahíllo-Fernández I, del Campo-Balsa MT. Síntomas post COVID-19 en profesionales sanitarios: un estudio multicéntrico. Rev Asoc Esp Espec Med Trab. 2024 [citado 28 jul 2025] ;33(1):30-41. Disponível em: http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S3020-11602024000100004&lng=es
  » http://scielo.isciii.es/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S3020-11602024000100004&lng=es
• ⁴⁶ Romero-Rodríguez E, Vélez-Santamaria R, Pérula-de-Torres LÁ, González-Lama J, Castro-Jiménez, RÁ, Simón-Vicente L et al. Clinical and epidemiological profiles of primary healthcare professionals with COVID-19 infection and long COVID: an observational study. Healthcare. 2023;11(12):1677. https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11121677
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/healthcare11121677
• ⁴⁷ López SS, Hernández MCP, Romero FJA. Condición post COVID-19 en trabajadores de la salud. La Habana: un año de seguimiento. Rev Hab Cienc Med. 2022 [citado 28 jul 2025];21(6):e5034. Disponível em: https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1804/180482303009/
  » https://www.redalyc.org/journal/1804/180482303009/
• ⁴⁸ Senjam SS, Blhara YPS, Kumar P, Nischal N, Manna S, Madan K et al. A comprehensive assessment of self-reported post COVID-19 symptoms among beneficiaries of hospital employee scheme at a tertiary healthcare institution in northern India. Int J Gen Med. 2022;15:4643-55. https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S381070
  » https://doi.org/10.2147/IJGM.S381070
• ⁴⁹ Torrance N, Maclver E, Adams NN, Skåtun D, Scott N, Kennedy C et al. Lived experience of work and long COVID in healthcare staff. Occup Med (Lond). 2024;74(1):78-85. https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqad117
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/occmed/kqad117
• ⁵⁰ Vasconcelos DSS, Pompeo DA, Antonio-Viegas MCR, Miasso AI, Arruda GO, Teston EF et al. Fatores associados à COVID longa em profissionais de enfermagem. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2024;58:e20240268. https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2024-0268pt
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1980-220X-REEUSP-2024-0268pt
• ⁵¹ Vimercati L, De Maria L, Quarato M, Caputi A, Gesualdo L, Migliore G et al. Association between long COVID and overweight/obesity. J Clin Med. 2021;10(18):4169. https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184143
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/jcm10184143
• ⁵² Weigert FP, Waldman EA, Mueller EV, Coradassi CE, Schimiguel LF, Borges PKO. Limitações de vida diária na condição pós-COVID-19 em trabalhadores de saúde. Rev Carib Cienc Soc. 2025;14(1):1-12. https://doi.org/10.55905/rcssv14n1-010
  » https://doi.org/10.55905/rcssv14n1-010
• ⁵³ Wose Kinge C, Hanekom S, Lupton-Smith A, Akpan F, Mothibi E, Maotoe T et al. Persistent symptoms among frontline health workers post-acute COVID-19 infection. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022;19(10):5933. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105933
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19105933
• ⁵⁴ Yamamoto CY, Thomé PHF, Sabec-Pereira DK, Pereira KF. Avaliação clínica de sintomas neurológicos em profissionais de saúde após infecção por COVID-19 no município de Toledo-PR. Rev JRG Estud Acad. 2023;6(13):288-301. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8122288
  » https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8122288
• ⁵⁵ Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
• ⁵⁶ Davis HE, Assaf GS, McCorkell L, Wei H, Low RJ, Re'em Y et al. Characterizing long COVID in an international cohort: 7 months of symptoms and their impact. E Clin Med. 2021;38:101019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101019
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101019
• ⁵⁷ Muthuka JK, Nkiozi JM, Kelly JO, Musangi EN, CHebungei LC, Nabaweesi R et al. Prevalence and predictors of long COVID-19 and the average time to diagnosis in the general population: a systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. COVID. 2024;4(7):968-81. https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4070067
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4070067
• ⁵⁸ Hou Y, Gu T, Ni Z, Shi X, Ranney ML, Mukherjee B. Global prevalence of long COVID, its subtypes and risk factors: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Open Forum Infect Dis. 2025;12(9):ofaf533. https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf533
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaf533
• ⁵⁹ Barboza APB, Luna-Muschi A, Faffe DS, Mendes ET, Borges I, Galliez RM et al. COVID longa: estudo multicêntrico brasileiro. Braz J Infect Dis. 2023;27(Suppl 1):102899. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2023.102899
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bjid.2023.102899
• ⁶⁰ Sousa CC, Araújo TM, Lua I, Gomes MR, Freitas KS. Insatisfação com o trabalho, aspectos psicossociais, satisfação pessoal e saúde mental de trabalhadores e trabalhadoras da saúde. Cad Saúde Pública. 2021;37(7):e00246320. https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00246320
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-311X00246320
• ⁶¹ Campos FM, Araújo TM, Viola DN, Oliveira PCS, Sousa CC. Estresse ocupacional e saúde mental no trabalho em saúde: desigualdades de gênero e raça. Cad Saúde Colet. 2020;28(4):579-89. https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-462X202028040559
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1414-462X202028040559
• ⁶² Igarashi Y, Tateishi S, Harada A, Hino A, Tsuji M, Ando H et al. Association of workplace stressors prior to infection and the development of long COVID among workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study in Japan. J Occup Health. 2024;66(1):uiae062. https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiae062
  » https://doi.org/10.1093/joccuh/uiae062
• ⁶³ Chigwedere OC, Sadath A, Kabir Z, Arensman E. The impact of epidemics and pandemics on the mental health of healthcare workers: a systematic review. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2021;18(13):6695. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136695
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18136695
• ⁶⁴ Reason J. Human error: models and management. BMJ. 2000;320(7237):768-70. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
  » https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.320.7237.768
• ⁶⁵ O'Mahony LL, Routen A, Gillies C, Jenkins SA, Almaqhawi A, Ayoubkhani D et al. The risk of long COVID symptoms: a systematic review and meta-analysis of controlled studies. Nat Commun. 2025;16(1):4248. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59012-w
  » https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-025-59012-w
• ⁶⁶ Homrich PHP, Dantas-Filho FF, Martins LL, Marcon ER. Presenteísmo entre trabalhadores da saúde: revisão da literatura. Rev Bras Med Trab. 2020;18(1):97-102. https://doi.org/10.5327/Z1679443520200478
  » https://doi.org/10.5327/Z1679443520200478
• ⁶⁷ Isangwe S, Talbot D, Coutu MF, Canitrot E, Décary S, Falcone EL et al. Functional impact of long COVID among healthcare workers with comorbidities in Quebec, Canada. medRxiv. 2025. https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.19.25335951
  » https://doi.org/10.1101/2025.09.19.25335951

• Information on academic work:
  Article based on the undergraduate thesis entitled Symptoms of Long COVID in Healthcare Workers: A Systematic Review (Sintomas da covid longa em trabalhadores da saúde: uma revisão sistemática), submitted by the author Kaique Oliveira Mota to the Nursing Program at the Federal University of Bahia in April 2026.
• Data availability:
  The dataset supporting the results of this study is available in the SciELO Data repository: Mota KO; Paz LYS; Almeida MMC; Machado LP; Santana GS; Lira CRN; Santos TA. Replication data for: Prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition among healthcare workers: a systematic review (Dados de replicação para: Prevalência da condição pós-covid-19 entre trabalhadores da saúde: uma revisão sistemática). Available from: https://doi.org/10.48331/SCIELODATA.NS394D
• Statement on the use of Artificial Intelligence:
  During the preparation of this article, the artificial intelligence tool Gemini, versions 3.1 and 3.5 Flash, was used to translate the abstract into English and Spanish to ensure fluency, accuracy of technical terminology, natural idiomatic expression, grammatical correctness, and conciseness of the text. The authors declare that they reviewed and validated all content generated with the aid of the artificial intelligence tool.
• Presentation at a scientific event:
  The authors report that partial results of the study were presented at the 2025 UFBA Congress of the Federal University of Bahia on September 3, 2025, in Salvador, Bahia, Brazil.
• Funding
  All authors of the study received financial support through a research grant or fellowship, with the exception of Carlos Rodrigo Nascimento de Lira. We clarify that the funding was provided through a Decentralized Execution Agreement (TED No. 74/2023).

Supplementary Tables:

Table S1
Summary of the studies included in the systematic review, listed by publication characteristics, sample, demographic data, and clinical outcomes

Author (Year)	Study Design	Study Objective	Country	Sample (n)	Gender (F/M)	Age/Age Group	Outcome (Main Symptoms and Findings)
Arshad et al. (2023)24	Cross-sectional	To investigate post-COVID manifestations and symptom duration among healthcare workers.	Pakistan	126	51.6% F (65)/ 48.4% M (61)	Age group: 18 to 25 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (38.1%), Numbness (34.1%), Cough (23.0%), Anxiety (20.6%), Myalgia (20.6%). Findings: 72.3% continued to experience symptoms after two months. The study highlights that young women have a higher incidence of hair loss and persistent anxiety.
Berdiugina (2024)25	Cohort	To analyze the progression of post-COVID symptoms one, two, and three months after infection.	Russia	59	84.7% F (50)/ 15.3% M (9)	Age range: 28 to 56 years	Symptoms: Insomnia (57.7%), weakness (57.7%), muscle pain (57.1%), chest pain (16.7%), allergies (16.7%). Findings: Fatigue and shortness of breath remain stable over time, while neurological symptoms tend to fluctuate.
Bliddal et al. (2021)26	Cohort	To determine the prevalence and risks for acute and persistent symptoms in non-hospitalized patients.	Denmark	445	57.1% F (254)/ 42.9% M (191)	Median: 45 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (95.0%), Headache (82.0%), Sneezing (76.0%), Memory loss (13.0%), Persistent loss of smell (10.0%). Findings: Female sex and high BMI were the main predictors of persistent symptoms in mild cases.
Carazo et al. (2022)27	Case-control	To identify the prevalence of post-COVID conditions and physical and cognitive symptoms.	Canada	10,442	82.4% F (8,606)/ 17.6% M (1,836)	Mean: 41.9 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (30%), Dyspnea (20%), Loss of smell/taste (20%), Cognitive dysfunction (15%), Headache (13%). Findings: Cognitive dysfunction and fatigue were identified as the sequelae with the greatest impact on work capacity.
Carmona-Cervelló (2024)28	Cross-sectional	To investigate cognitive, balance, and retinal manifestations in long COVID.	Spain	166	85.5% F (142)/ 14.5% M (24)	Mean age: 49.6 years	Symptoms: Memory impairment (98.8%), brain fog (82.5%), insomnia (71.1%), dizziness (67.1%), paresthesia (65.0%). Findings: Demonstrated objective balance deficits and retinal changes correlated with cognitive severity.
Cázares-Lara (2025)29	Cross-sectional	To assess the impact on quality of life and physical and psychosomatic manifestations.	Mexico	179	59.2% F (106)/ 40.8% M (73)	Average age: 42.9 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (26.0%), physical pain (18.0%), cognitive impairment (17.0%), headache (15.0%), GI problems (9.0%). Findings: Persistent physical pain and anxiety/depression were the strongest predictors of a decline in quality of life.
Cegolon et al. (2023)30	Cross-sectional	To investigate the prevalence and risk factors for post-COVID-19 condition among healthcare workers.	Italy	5,432	65.3% F (3,547)/ 34.7% M (1,885)	Average age: 44 years	Symptoms: Asthenia (30.3%), myalgia (13.7%), cough (12.4%), dyspnea (10.2%), difficulty concentrating (8.1%). Findings: Short-term prevalence of 24%. Vaccination with two doses significantly reduced the risk of chronic sequelae.
Chen, Chiu & Chen (2025)31	Cohort	To assess neuropsychiatric aspects in vaccinated professionals who became infected.	Taiwan	467	78.8% F (368)/ 21.2% M (99)	Mean: 38.9 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (40.0%), headache (26.9%), memory problems (22.4%), dizziness (20.3%), anxiety (17.5%). Findings: It was observed that burnout and occupational stress can mimic symptoms of a post-COVID-19 condition, leading to reporting bias.
Chowdhury et al. (2024)32	Cohort	To estimate the prevalence of post-COVID symptoms and renal and cardiac risks.	Bangladesh	803	45.2% F (363)/ 54.8% M (440)	Mean: 36.4 years	Symptoms: Memory (18.0%), Visual disturbances (14.0%), Depression (12.0%), Palpitations (9.0%), Cough (8.0%). Findings: Memory loss is the most common neurological sequela. Obesity is associated with an increased risk of glomerular damage.
D’Ávila et al. (2023)33	Cohort	To assess symptom persistence and impact on health-related quality of life (HRQOL).	Brazil	289	74.4% F (215)/ 25.6% M (74)	Mean: 42.6 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (36.5%), Sleepiness (14.3%), Dyspnea (12.7%), Cough (9.5%), Myalgia (8.5%). Findings: 36.2% diagnosed with post-COVID condition; persistent reduction in quality of life six months after infection.
Etemad et al. (2023)34	Cohort	To assess the incidence of long-term complications among nurses.	Iran	1,762	73.5% F (1,295)/ 26.5% M (467)	Mean: 35 years	Symptoms: Respiratory complications (52.1%), pain (26.0%), smell/taste (14.6%), anxiety (11.2%), skin (8.8%). Findings: Incidence of 64.3%; respiratory sequelae and generalized pain were the most prevalent complications.
Gaber et al. (2021)35	Cross-sectional	To investigate the long-term impact of COVID-19 on healthcare workers.	England	138	92.0% F (127)/ 8.0% M (11)	N/R	Symptoms: Insomnia (49.0%), Mood (44.0%), Dyspnea (40.0%), Fatigue (39.0%), Work disability (32.0%). Findings: 45.0% continue to experience symptoms after four months; sleep disturbances and fatigue severely affect work performance.
Gazzoni et al. (2024)36	Cross-sectional	To analyze the prevalence of post-infection symptoms among primary care nurses.	Brazil	158	91.1% F (144)/ 8.9% M (14)	Mean: 40.1 years	Symptoms: Memory (58.8%), Pain (23.5%), Sense of Smell/Taste (17.7%), Fatigue (17.7%), Hair (11.8%). Findings: 68.4% of primary care nurses reported symptoms; memory impairment impacts their daily care routine.
Grígolo et al. (2025)37	Cross-sectional	To assess limitations in daily activities among healthcare professionals.	Brazil	344	82.6% F (284)/ 17.4% M (60)	Age range: 18 to 60 years	Symptoms: Memory (16.9%), Respiratory (12.7%), Psychiatric (6.0%), Fatigue (6.0%), Hair loss (4.8%). Findings: Fatigue and memory loss are the primary determinants of functional limitation among workers.
Haller et al. (2022)38	Cross-sectional	To investigate persistent fatigue and its impact on quality of life and work capacity.	Germany	2,035	77.0% F (1,567)/ 23.0% M (468)	Average age: 42 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (69.7%), Memory (59.0%), Dyspnea (46.8%), Headache (34.8%), Smell/Taste (32.8%). Findings: Severe fatigue associated with greater work disability and lower scores on quality of life indices.
Havervall et al. (2021)39	Cohort	To investigate long-term sequelae following mild COVID-19 in healthcare workers.	Sweden	323 (inf.)	83.0% F (268)/ 17.0% M (55)	Mean age: 44 years	Symptoms: Sense of smell (14.6%), Fatigue (8.4%), Sense of taste (7.7%), Shortness of breath (4.3%), Sleep disturbances (3.1%). Findings: 26% had moderate/severe symptoms at eight months; anosmia and fatigue were the most distinctive long-term effects.
Horn et al. (2023)40	Cohort	To assess the prevalence of TSS and physical pain.	France	220	54.5% F (120)/ 45.5% M (100)	Mean age: 53 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (39.0%), Sleepiness (35.0%), Back pain (30.0%), Headache (25.0%), Dyspnea (20.0%). Findings: 53.6% had persistent physical symptoms; 10.4% developed SSD associated with psychological distress.
Kaplan et al. (2022)41	Cross-sectional	To investigate persistent symptoms and their relationship to demographic characteristics.	Turkey	121	62.8% F (76)/ 37.2% M (45)	Mean: 33.5 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (33.0%), Sense of smell (22.3%), Attention (20.7%), Dyspnea (19.8%), Myalgia (19.8%). Findings: 63.0% had symptoms for >12 weeks; fatigue and attention deficits reduced perceived health.
Wose Kinge et al. (2022)53	Cross-sectional	To determine the prevalence of persistent symptoms among frontline workers.	South Africa	62	76.0% F (47)/ 24.0% M (15)	Mean: 33.5 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (42.0%), Anxiety (34.0%), Insomnia (31.0%), Chest pain (24.0%), Myalgia (21.0%). Findings: Persistent fatigue and anxiety among frontline workers even after acute cases classified as mild.
López et al. (2022)47	Cohort	To identify clinical and epidemiological characteristics and work capacity.	Cuba	40	80.0% F (32)/ 20.0% M (8)	Mean: 50.8 years	Symptoms: Dyspnea (18.8%), insomnia (18.8%), arthralgia (12.5%), palpitations (3.0%), alopecia (3.0%). Findings: Respiratory symptoms improved within one year, but insomnia and joint pain persisted.
Marra et al. (2023)15	Case-control	To identify the prevalence and risks associated with variants and vaccination.	Brazil	7,051	75.5% F (5,324)/ 24.5% M (1,727)	Mean: 41.9 years	Symptoms: Headache (53.4%), muscle pain (46.6%), congestion (45.1%), fatigue (42.5%), cough (35.0%). Findings: Reinfections increased the risk; vaccination (four doses) and the Omicron variant reduced prevalence.
Messin et al. (2021)42	Cohort	To describe the natural course of the disease six months after symptom onset.	France	74	59.5% F (44)/ 40.5% M (30)	Mean: 52.3 years	Symptoms: Asthenia (56.6%), dyspnea (34.0%), anxiety (32.1%), sense of smell (24.5%), sense of taste (15.1%). Findings: Asthenia and dyspnea were the most stable symptoms at six months in the prospective COVEVOL study.
Park & Park (2024)43	Cross-sectional	To identify symptoms of post-COVID-19 condition and associated factors among nurses.	South Korea	189	93.7% F (177)/ 6.3% M (12)	Mean: 31.5 years	Symptoms: Weakness (77.8%), fatigue (68.3%), dyspnea (67.7%), cough (50.3%), insomnia (50.3%). Findings: Nearly all (94.7%) reported post-COVID-19 conditions; a heavy workload was associated with disease severity.
Peters et al. (2022)44	Cross-sectional	To examine long-term health and social service consequences and risks.	Germany	2,053	82.7% F (1,698)/ 17.3% M (355)	Average age: 42.9 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (82.9%), Memory (70.7%), Dyspnea (56.5%), Headache (41.3%), Sense of smell (38.1%). Findings: 72.8% had post-COVID condition; cognitive problems affected 70.7% of symptomatic healthcare professionals.
Romero-Rodríguez et al. (2023)46	Case-control	To analyze the clinical and epidemiological profile in primary care.	Spain	1,490	75.5% F (1,125)/ 24.5% M (365)	Mean: 46 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (78.9%), headache (69.7%), myalgia (63.2%), dyspnea (61.2%), loss of smell (57.9%). Findings: Asthma and severe acute symptoms were the main predictors of post-COVID condition.
Rey Samper et al. (2024)45	Cross-sectional	To determine the clinical characteristics of post-COVID symptoms in healthcare professionals.	Spain	396	77.5% F (307)/ 22.5% M (89)	Mean: 40.4 years	Symptoms: Laryngeal (20.2%), Fatigue (17.4%), Dyspnea (11.6%), Mood (8.1%), Brain fog (7.6%). Findings: Significant decline in self-reported health status; muscle fatigue present in one-third of the staff.
Senjam et al. (2022)48	Cross-sectional	To assess post-COVID syndrome and risk factors among hospital staff.	India	773	43.6% F (337)/ 56.4% M (436)	Median: 34 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (79.3%), Arthralgia (33.4%), Myalgia (29.9%), Hair loss (28.0%), Headache (27.2%). Findings: A 12.1% prevalence of PCS at six months. The study highlights the need for multidisciplinary support for staff.
Torrance et al. (2024)49	Cross-sectional (quantitative) + qualitative (interviews)	To explore the impact of post-COVID-19 condition on well-being and work patterns.	United Kingdom	471	86.0% F (405)/ 14.0% M (66)	Age group: 45 to 54 years	Symptoms: Fatigue (88.0%), brain fog (79.0%), shortness of breath (69.0%), insomnia (54.0%), palpitations (48.0%). Findings: 90% experienced limitations in daily activities; 65% required sick leave or workplace accommodations.
Vasconcelos (2024)50	Cross-sectional	To analyze the association between sociodemographic variables and resilience.	Brazil	109	90.8% F (99)/ 9.2% M (10)	Mean: 40.3 years	Symptoms: Memory (59.6%), Anxiety (38.5%), Headache (35.8%), Weakness (35.8%), Cough (30.3%). Findings: Low resilience and acute anxiety increased the likelihood of persistent symptoms among nurses.
Vimercati et al. (2021)51	Cohort	To investigate risks (BMI) associated with post-COVID-19 condition over one year.	Italy	352	58.0% F (204)/ 42.0% M (148)	Average age: 45 years	Symptoms: Dyspnea (22.6%), tachycardia (19.0%), fatigue (16.7%), PTSD (14.3%), myalgia (11.5%). Findings: A BMI > 25 kg/m2 was the greatest metabolic risk factor for chronic symptoms of fatigue and dyspnea.
Weigert et al. (2025)52	Cross-sectional	To determine the prevalence of limitations in activities of daily living among healthcare professionals.	Brazil	165	81.8% F (135)/ 18.2% M (30)	Age range: 21 to 70 years	Symptoms: Walking (52.5%), Standing (37.5%), Concentration (35.0%), Activities of Daily Living (ADL) (30.0%), Household chores (23.6%). Findings: Physical limitations (walking and standing) were the greatest functional barriers identified.
Yamamoto (2023)54	Cross-sectional	To establish post-COVID neurological and clinical changes in primary care clinic professionals.	Brazil	31	90.3% F (28)/ 9.7% M (3)	Age range: 24 to 58 years	Symptoms: Memory (90.0%), Reasoning (85.0%), Vision (84.6%), Anxiety (84.5%), and Concentration (84.0%). Findings: 90.3% had persistent neurological sequelae, indicating a high impact on cognitive and mental capacity.

• BMI: Body Mass Index; GI: gastrointestinal; SSD: Somatic Symptom Disorder; PCS: Post-COVID Syndrome; PTSD: Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder; ADL: Activities of Daily Living; PHC: Primary Health Care; QoL: Quality of Life; F: Female; M: Male.
• Source: prepared by the authors (2026).

Table S2
Risk of Bias Assessment (JBI) – Cross-sectional, Cohort, and Case-Control Studies

Study	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Q9	Q10	Q11	% Yes	Risk of Bias
Cross-Sectional Studies (n = 18) — JBI Cross-Sectional Checklist (Q1–Q8)
Cegolon et al., 202330	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	100%	Low
Carmona-Cervelló et al., 202428	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	100%	Low
Peters et al., 202244	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	100%	Low
Haller et al., 202238	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	100%	Low
Vasconcelos et al., 202450	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	100%	Low
Park & Park, 202443	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	100%	Low
Torrance et al., 202449	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	100%	Low
Cázares-Lara et al., 202529	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	87.5%	Low
Rey Samper et al., 202445	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	87.5%	Low
Grígolo et al., 202537	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	87.5%	Low
Weigert et al., 202552	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	87.5%	Low
Senjam et al., 202248	Y	N	Y	Y	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	75.0%	Low
Arshad et al., 202224	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	62.5%	Moderate
Kaplan et al., 202241	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	62.5%	Moderate
Gaber et al., 202135	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	62.5%	Moderate
Wose Kinge et al., 202253	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	62.5%	Moderate
Yamamoto et al., 202354	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	62.5%	Moderate
Gazzoni et al., 202436	Y	N	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	—	—	—	62.5%	Moderate
Cohort Studies (n = 11) — JBI Cohort Checklist (Q1–Q11)
Havervall et al., 202139	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	S	100%	Low
Bliddal et al., 202126	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	S	100%	Low
Vimercati et al., 202151	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	S	100%	Low
Chen, Chiu, Chen, 202531	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	S	100%	Low
Horn et al., 202340	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	Y	S	90.9%	Low
Chowdhury et al., 202432	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N/A	N/A	S	81.8%	Low
Messin et al., 202142	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	N	S	81.8%	Low
Etemad et al., 202334	N	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	S	63.6%	Moderate
D’Ávila et al., 202333	N	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	S	63.6%	Moderate
López et al., 202247	N	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	Y	N	S	63.6%	Moderate
Berdjugina, 202425	N	Y	Y	N	N	Y	Y	Y	N	N	S	54.5%	Moderate
Case-Control Studies (n = 3) — JBI Case-Control Checklist (Q1–Q10)
Carazo et al., 202227	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	100%	Low
Marra et al., 202315	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	100%	Low
Romero-Rodríguez et al., 202346	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	—	100%	Low

• Y: Yes; N: No; N/A: Not Applicable; — Not assessed by the study type checklist.
• JBI Checklist Questions — Cross-sectional (Q1–Q8): Q1 Clear inclusion criteria; Q2 Subjects and setting described; Q3 Exposure measured validly; Q4 Condition/outcome measured validly; Q5 Confounding factors identified; Q6 Strategy for confounding factors; Q7 Outcomes measured consistently; Q8 Appropriate statistical analysis. Cohort (Q1–Q11): Q1 Similar groups recruited from the same population; Q2 Exposure measured similarly; Q3 Valid measurement of exposure; Q4 Confounding factors identified; Q5 Strategies for addressing confounding factors; Q6 Participants free of the outcome at baseline; Q7 Outcomes measured validly; Q8 Adequate follow-up duration; Q9 Complete follow-up; Q10 Strategies for addressing follow-up losses; Q11 Appropriate statistical analysis. Case-Control (Q1–Q10): Q1 Comparable groups; Q2 Appropriate matching; Q3 Identification criteria used; Q4 Standardized measurement of exposure; Q5 Exposure measured in the same way; Q6 Confounding factors identified; Q7 Strategies for confounding factors; Q8 Standardized assessment of the outcome-; Q9 Sufficient exposure period; Q10 Appropriate statistical analysis.
• Source: prepared by the authors (2026).

Table S3
NOS Assessment—Cross-Sectional, Cohort, and Case-Control Studies

Study	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Q5	Q6	Q7	Q8	Total	Quality
Cross-sectional studies (n = 18)
Carmona-Cervelló et al., 202428	★	★	★	★★	★★	★★	★	—	10/10	Good
Cegolon et al., 202330	★	★	★	★★	★★	★	★	—	9/10	Good
Haller et al., 202238	★	★	★	★★	★★	★	★	—	9/10	Good
Peters et al., 202244	★	★	★	★★	★★	★	★	—	9/10	Good
Vasconcelos et al., 202450	★	★	★	★★	★★	★	★	—	9/10	Good
Grígolo et al., 202537	★	★		★★	★	★	★	—	7/10	Moderate
Park & Park, 202443		★		★★	★★	★	★	—	7/10	Moderate
Rey Samper et al., 202445	★	★		★★	★	★	★	—	7/10	Moderate
Senjam et al., 202248	★	★		★★	★	★	★	—	7/10	Moderate
Torrance et al., 202449	★	★		★★	★	★	★	—	7/10	Moderate
Weigert et al., 202552	★	★		★★	★	★	★	—	7/10	Moderate
Cázares-Lara et al., 202529				★★	★★	★	★	—	6/10	Low
Arshad et al., 202224				★★	★	★	★	—	5/10	Low
Gaber et al., 202135				★★	★	★	★	—	5/10	Low
Gazzoni et al., 202436				★★	★	★	★	—	5/10	Low
Kaplan et al., 202241				★★	★	★	★	—	5/10	Low
Wose Kinge et al., 202253				★★	★	★	★	—	5/10	Low
Yamamoto et al., 202354				★★		★	★	—	4/10	Low
Cohort Studies (n = 11)
Chen, Chiu, Chen, 202531	★	★	★	★	★★	★	★	★	9/9	Good
Chowdhury et al., 202432	★	★	★	★	★★	★	★	★	9/9	Good
Havervall et al., 202139	★	★	★	★	★★	★	★	★	9/9	Good
Vimercati et al., 202151	★	★	★	★	★★	★	★	★	9/9	Good
Bliddal et al., 202126	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	8/9	Good
Messin et al., 202142	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	★	8/9	Good
Horn et al., 202340	★	★	★	★	★	★	★		7/9	Moderate
D’Ávila et al., 202333	★		★	★		★	★	★	6/9	Moderate
Etemad et al., 202334	★		★	★		★	★	★	6/9	Moderate
López et al., 202247	★		★	★	★	★	★		6/9	Moderate
Berdjugina, 202425	★		★	★		★	★		5/9	Low
Case-Control Studies (n = 3)
Carazo et al., 202227	★	★	★	★	★★	★	★	★	9/9	Good
Marra et al., 202315	★	★	★	★	★★	★	★	★	9/9	Good
Romero-Rodríguez et al., 202346	★	★	★	★	★★	★	★	★	9/9	Good

• ★: 1 star; ★★: 2 stars; empty cell: criterion not met; — criterion not included in the checklist for this study type.
• Adapted NOS — Cross-sectional (Max. 10 stars): Q1 Sample representativeness (★); Q2 Sample size (★); Q3 Response rate (★); Q4 Exposure validation (★★); Q5 Control of confounding factors (★★); Q6 Outcome assessment — ★★ independent record/★ self-report; Q7 Appropriate statistical test (★). NOS Original Cohort (Max. 9 stars): Q1 Representativeness of the exposed cohort (★); Q2 Selection of the unexposed cohort (★); Q3 Verification of exposure (★); Q4 Outcome not present at baseline (★); Q5 Comparability/statistical adjustment (★★); Q6 Assessment of outcome (★); Q7 Sufficiently long follow-up (★); Q8 Adequacy of follow-up/low attrition (★). Original Case-Control Study (Max. 9 stars): Q1 Adequate case definition (★); Q2 Representativeness of cases (★); Q3 Selection of controls (★); Q4 Definition of controls (★); Q5 Comparability/statistical adjustment (★★); Q6 Verification of exposure (★); Q7 Same verification method for cases and controls (★); Q8 Nonresponse rate (★).
• Source: compiled by the authors (2026).

Edited by

• Responsible editor
  Leila Posenato Garcia.https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1146-2641 Fundação Jorge Duprat Figueiredo de Segurança e Medicina do Trabalho - FUNDACENTRO

Data availability

The dataset supporting the results of this study is available in the SciELO Data repository: Mota KO; Paz LYS; Almeida MMC; Machado LP; Santana GS; Lira CRN; Santos TA. Replication data for: Prevalence of post-COVID-19 condition among healthcare workers: a systematic review (Dados de replicação para: Prevalência da condição pós-covid-19 entre trabalhadores da saúde: uma revisão sistemática). Available from: https://doi.org/10.48331/SCIELODATA.NS394D

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  11 Sept 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  01 Apr 2026
• Reviewed
  08 June 2026
• Accepted
  18 June 2026