Trial reportPloS one2015
Experiences of General Practitioners and Practice Assistants during the Influenza A(H1N1) Pandemic in the Netherlands: A Cross-Sectional Survey.
Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Experiences of Dutch Midwives Regarding the Quality of Care during the COVID-19 Pandemic.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Article
- Perception of Health Care Practitioners of Government Designated COVID-19 Hospitals of Nepal towards the Management of COVID-19 Pandemic: A Descriptive Cross-sectional Study.JNMA; journal of the Nepal Medical Association · 2022Article
- Burden Associated with Telephone Calls on COVID-19: Results of a Flash Mob Study in Family Practices.ZFA. Zeitschrift fur Allgemeinmedizin · 2022Article
- Review
- The use of health care during the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic: repeated cross-sectional survey of the adult Swiss general population.BMC public health · 2021Observational
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesSince few pandemics have occurred since the Spanish influenza pandemic, we should learn from every (mild) pandemic that occurs. The objective of this study was to report on general practitioners' and practice assistants' acceptance of the chosen national policy, and experiences in the Netherlands during the influenza A(H1N1)pdm09 pandemic.
methodsData on experience and acceptance of the chosen national policy were obtained by structured questionnaires for general practitioners (n = 372) and practice assistants (n = 503) in April 2010.
resultsThe primary policy chosen for general practice was not always accepted and complied with by general practitioners, although the communication (of changes) and collaboration with involved organisations were rated as positive. In particular, the advised personal protective measures were difficult to implement in daily work and thus not executed by 44% of general practitioners. Half of the general practitioners were not satisfied with the patient information provided by the government. The influenza A(H1N1) pandemic highly impacted on general practitioners' and practice assistants' workloads, which was not always deemed to be adequately compensated. DISCUSSION: Involvement of general practitioners in future infectious disease outbreaks is essential. This study addresses issues in the pandemic policy which might be critical in a more severe pandemic.
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.