Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33886489›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical Internet research2021

Characterizing Health Care Delays and Interruptions in the United States During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Internet-Based, Cross-sectional Survey Study.

Elizabeth Lerner Papautsky, Dylan R Rice, Hana Ghoneima, Anna Laura W McKowen, Nicholas Anderson, Angie R Wootton, Cindy Veldhuis

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of medical Internet research, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 43 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
43citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Recruitment strategies for a multisite telehealth trial for rural cancer survivors with ostomies.Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer · 2026
    Trial
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Characteristics of Cannabis Use Among Head and Neck Cancer Survivors.Laryngoscope investigative otolaryngology · 2025
    Article
  8. Observational
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  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.

Elizabeth Lerner PapautskyDepartment of Biomedical & Health Information Sciences, College of Applied Health Sciences, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-2771-9579
Dylan R RiceDepartment of Neurology, Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston, MA, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-0295-1462
Hana GhoneimaDepartment of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-3884-7528
Anna Laura W McKowenDepartment of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0001-7986-6904
Nicholas AndersonDepartment of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-0723-0477
Angie R WoottonSchool of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, United States.ORCID 0000-0003-1689-4793
Cindy VeldhuisDepartment of Counseling & Clinical Psychology, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York, NY, United States.ORCID 0000-0002-4513-9554

Funding

A mixed-methods approach to understanding stress and hazardous drinking among same-sex female couplesK99AA028049 · NIAAA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI VELDHUIS, CINDY B · 2020 to 2021
$316k
NIAAA NIH HHS K99 AA028049
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has broader geographic spread and potentially longer lasting effects than those of previous disasters. Necessary preventive precautions for the transmission of COVID-19 has resulted in delays for in-person health care services, especially at the outset of the pandemic.

objectiveAmong a US sample, we examined the rates of delays (defined as cancellations and postponements) in health care at the outset of the pandemic and characterized the reasons for such delays.

methodsAs part of an internet-based survey that was distributed on social media in April 2020, we asked a US-based convenience sample of 2570 participants about delays in their health care resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic. Participant demographics and self-reported worries about general health and the COVID-19 pandemic were explored as potent determinants of health care delays. In addition to all delays, we focused on the following three main types of delays, which were the primary outcomes in this study: dental, preventive, and diagnostic care delays. For each outcome, we used bivariate statistical tests (t tests and chi-square tests) and multiple logistic regression models to determine which factors were associated with health care delays.

resultsThe top reported barrier to receiving health care was the fear of SARS-CoV-2 infection (126/374, 33.6%). Almost half (1227/2570, 47.7%) of the participants reported experiencing health care delays. Among those who experienced health care delays and further clarified the type of delay they experienced (921/1227, 75.1%), the top three reported types of care that were affected by delays included dental (351/921, 38.1%), preventive (269/921, 29.2%), and diagnostic (151/921, 16.4%) care. The logistic regression models showed that age (P<.001), gender identity (P<.001), education (P=.007), and self-reported worry about general health (P<.001) were significantly associated with experiencing health care delays. Self-reported worry about general health was negatively related to experiencing delays in dental care. However, this predictor was positively associated with delays in diagnostic testing based on the logistic regression model. Additionally, age was positively associated with delays in diagnostic testing. No factors remained significant in the multiple logistic regression for delays in preventive care, and although there was trend between race and delays (people of color experienced fewer delays than White participants), it was not significant (P=.06).

conclusionsThe lessons learned from the initial surge of COVID-19 cases can inform systemic mitigation strategies for potential future disruptions. This study addresses the demand side of health care delays by exploring the determinants of such delays. More research on health care delays during the pandemic is needed, including research on their short- and long-term impacts on patient-level outcomes such as mortality, morbidity, mental health, people's quality of life, and the experience of pain.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultAgedAged, 80 and overCOVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternet-Based InterventionMaleMiddle AgedPandemicsPatient Acceptance of Health CareQuality of LifeSARS-CoV-2Surveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19delayhealth care delaysinternet surveyinterruptionlockdownprecautionpreventionpreventive caresocial mediasurvey

Identifiers

PMID33886489
PMCPMC8136407

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.