Long COVID is the term coined by patients to describe the longterm consequences of COVID-19, the 2019 pandemic disease caused by the new severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). 1 We define long COVID as the presence of signs and symptoms that develop during or following an infection consistent with COVID-19 and continue for 4 weeks or longer. 10 The term includes "postacute COVID-19" (4-12 weeks) and "post-COVID syndrome" (12 weeks or longer). 10 Early reports of long-term sequelae focused on hospitalized patients, which drove rehabilitation teams to apply exercise-based protocols for patients who were deconditioned during intensive-care hospital stays. 11Even mild cases of COVID-19 in the community may lead to long COVID. 3 As many countries confront surging COVID-19 case numbers, new evidence describes the prevalence of persistent symptoms of COVID-19 infection after 6 months. 3,6 At least half of patients living with long COVID will continue to

As six patient partners in Canada, we aim to contribute to learning and to provide an opportunity to reflect on patient engagement (PE) in research and healthcare environments. Patient engagement refers to “meaningful and active collaboration in governance, priority setting, conducting research and knowledge translation” with patient partners as members of teams, rather than participants in research or clinical care. While much has been written about the benefits of patient engagement, it is important to accurately document and share what we term ‘patient engagement gone wrong.’ These examples have been anonymized and presented as four statements: patient partners as a check mark, unconscious bias towards patient partners, lack of support to fully include patient partners, and lack of recognizing the vulnerability of patient partners. The examples provided are intended to demonstrate that patient engagement gone wrong is more common than discussed openly, and to simply bring this to light. This article is not intending to lay blame, rather to evolve and improve patient engagement initiatives. We ask those who interact with patient partners to reflect so we can all work towards improving patient engagement. Lean into the discomfort with these conversations as that is the only way to change these all too recognizable examples, and which will lead to better project outcomes and experiences for all team members.

Mental Health Practitioners (MHPs) have a unique opportunity to provide resources and support to those suffering from Long COVID (LC), the post infectious illness that often follows an acute SARS-CoV-2 infection. In working with these individuals, MHPs can learn from the experiences of patients with another post-infectious disease known as myalgic encephalomyelitis/chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS). ME/CFS was once thought to be a psychologically mediated disorder caused by deconditioning and the fear of exertion following a precipitating event such as a viral infection. Research now shows that LC and ME/CFS are biomedical, multisystem, complex physiologic diseases. This article provides a framework to MHPs for the treatment of LC patients using knowledge derived from three decades of research on ME/CFS.

As six patient partners in Canada, we aim to contribute to learning and to provide an opportunity to reflect on patient engagement (PE) in research and healthcare environments. Patient engagement refers to “meaningful and active collaboration in governance, priority setting, conducting research and knowledge translation” with patient partners as members of teams, rather than participants in research or clinical care. While much has been written about the benefits of patient engagement, it is important to accurately document and share what we term ‘patient engagement gone wrong.’ These examples have been anonymized and sorted into four categories: patient partners as a check mark, unconscious bias towards patient partners, lack of support to fully include patient partners, and lack of recognizing the vulnerability of patient partners. These examples are intended to demonstrate that patient engagement gone wrong is more common than discussed, and to simply bring these experiences to light. This article is not intending to lay blame, rather to evolve and improve patient engagement initiatives. We ask those who interact with patients to reflect so we can all work towards improving patient engagement. Lean into the discomfort with these conversations as that is the only way to change these all too recognizable scenarios, and which will lead to better project outcomes and experiences for all team members.