Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33293329›Full record

Observational studyBMJ open2020

How primary healthcare in Iceland swiftly changed its strategy in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Emil Larus Sigurdsson, Anna Bryndis Blondal, Jon Steinar Jonsson, Margret Olafia Tomasdottir, Hannes Hrafnkelsson, Kristjan Linnet, Johann Agust Sigurdsson

Abstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 31 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
31citing papers in PubMed, 2 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

31 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Uses of Virtual Care in Primary Care: Scoping Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Observational
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Emil Larus SigurdssonDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland School of Health Sciences, Reykjavik, Iceland emilsig@hi.is.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0796-565X
Anna Bryndis BlondalDevelopment Centre for Primary Healthcare in Iceland, Primary Health Care of the Capital Area, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Jon Steinar JonssonDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland School of Health Sciences, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Margret Olafia TomasdottirDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland School of Health Sciences, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Hannes HrafnkelssonDepartment of Family Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Iceland School of Health Sciences, Reykjavik, Iceland.
Kristjan LinnetDevelopment Centre for Primary Healthcare in Iceland, Primary Health Care of the Capital Area, Reykjavik, Iceland.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-0189-9519
Johann Agust SigurdssonFaculty of Medicine, Department of Public Health and Nursing/General Practice Research Unit, Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU), Trondheim, Norway.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo describe how the primary healthcare (PHC) in Iceland changed its strategy to handle the COVID-19 pandemic.

designDescriptive observational study.

settingReykjavik, the capital of Iceland. POPULATION: The Reykjavik area has a total of 233 000 inhabitants.

main outcome measuresThe number and the mode of consultations carried out. Drug prescriptions and changes in the 10 most common diagnoses made in PHC. Laboratory tests including COVID-19 tests. Average numbers in March and April 2020 compared with the same months in 2018 and 2019.

resultsPragmatic strategies and new tasks were rapidly applied to the clinical work to meet the foreseen healthcare needs caused by the pandemic. The number of daytime consultations increased by 35% or from 780 to 1051/1000 inhabitants (p<0.001) during the study period. Telephone and web-based consultations increased by 127% (p<0.001). The same tendency was observed in out-of-hours services. The number of consultations in maternity and well-child care decreased only by 4% (p=0.003). Changes were seen in the 10 most common diagnoses. Most noteworthy, apart from a high number of COVID-19 suspected disease, was that immunisation, depression, hypothyroidism and lumbago were not among the top 10 diagnoses during the epidemic period. The number of drug prescriptions increased by 10.3% (from 494 to 545 per 1000 inhabitants, p<0.001). The number of prescriptions from telephone and web-based consultations rose by 55.6%. No changes were observed in antibiotics prescriptions.

conclusionsAs the first point of contact in the COVID-19 pandemic, the PHC in Iceland managed to change its strategy swiftly while preserving traditional maternity and well-child care, indicating a very solid PHC with substantial flexibility in its organisation.

Indexed as

Practice Patterns, Physicians'COVID-19HumansIcelandMaternal-Child Health ServicesOffice VisitsPandemicsPrimary Health CareRegistriesSARS-CoV-2TelemedicineCOVID-19epidemiologyinfectious diseasesorganisation of health servicesprimary care

Identifiers

PMID33293329
PMCPMC7722808

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.