Observational studyBMJ open2014
Access to the NHS by telephone and Internet during an influenza pandemic: an observational study.
Observational study in BMJ open, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed, 17 citations in OpenAlex.
- Better data for better public health decision-making: perspectives on quantifying the intended and unintended impacts of public service modifications.BMC global and public health · 2026Review
- Experiences of Dutch Midwives Regarding the Quality of Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Antiviral treatment for outpatient use during an influenza pandemic: a decision tree model of outcomes averted and cost-effectiveness.Journal of public health (Oxford, England) · 2019Article
- Article
- Assessing the severity of influenza: a role for longitudinal telephone surveys?Epidemiology and infection · 2018Article
- Risk factors for influenza-related complications in children during the 2009/10 pandemic: a UK primary care cohort study using linked routinely collected data.Epidemiology and infection · 2018Article
- Article
- Twitter Influence on UK Vaccination and Antiviral Uptake during the 2009 H1N1 Pandemic.Frontiers in public health · 2016Article
- Modelling, Simulation and Social Network Data: What's New for Public Health and Epidemiology Informatics?Yearbook of medical informatics · 2015Article
- The spatiotemporal association of non-prescription retail sales with cases during the 2009 influenza pandemic in Great Britain.BMJ open · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesTo examine use of a novel telephone and Internet service-the National Pandemic Flu Service (NPFS)-by the population of England during the 2009-2010 influenza pandemic.
settingNational telephone and Internet-based service.
participantsService available to population of England (n=51.8 million). PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary: service use rate, by week. Numbers and age-specific and sex-specific rates of population who: accessed service; were authorised to collect antiviral medication; collected antiviral medication; were advised to seek further face-to-face assessment. Secondary: daily mean contacts by hour; proportion using service by telephone/Internet.
resultsThe NPFS was activated on 23 July 2009, operated for 204 days and assessed 2.7 million patients (5200 consultations/100 000 population). This was six times the number of people who consulted their general practitioner with influenza-like illness during the same period (823 consultations/100 000 population, rate ratio (RR)=6.30, 95% CI 6.28 to 6.32). Women used the service more than men (52.6 vs 43.4 assessments/1000 population, RR1 21, 95% CI 1.21 to 1.22). Among adults, use of the service declined with age (16-29 years: 74.4 vs 65 years+: 9.9 assessments/1000 population (RR 7.46 95% CI 7.41 to 7.52). Almost three-quarters of those assessed met the criteria to receive antiviral medication (1 807 866/2 488 510; 72.6%). Most of the people subsequently collected this medication, although more than one-third did not (n=646 709; 35.8%). Just over one-third of those assessed were advised to seek further face-to-face assessment with a practitioner (951 332/2 488 504; 38.2%).
conclusionsThis innovative healthcare service operated at large scale and achieved its aim of relieving considerable pressure from mainstream health services, while providing appropriate initial assessment and management for patients. This offers proof-of-concept for such a service that, with further refinement, England can use in future pandemics. Other countries may wish to adopt a similar system as part of their pandemic emergency planning.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.