Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33962635›Full record

SynthesisImplementation science : IS2021

Systematic review of experiences and perceptions of key actors and organisations at multiple levels within health systems internationally in responding to COVID-19.

Simon Turner, Natalia Botero-Tovar, Maria Alejandra Herrera, Juan Pablo Borda Kuhlmann, Francisco Ortiz, Jean Carlo Ramírez, Luisa Fernanda Maldonado

Abstract readSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Implementation science : IS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 3 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

30 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Tapping into the minds and hearts of the local public health workforce during the COVID-19 pandemic.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2022
    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.

Simon TurnerSchool of Management, University of los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia. s.turner@uniandes.edu.co.ORCID 0000-0002-1801-8351
Natalia Botero-TovarSchool of Management, University of los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.ORCID 0000-0001-7664-5452
Maria Alejandra HerreraSchool of Management, University of los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Juan Pablo Borda KuhlmannSchool of Management, University of los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Francisco OrtizSchool of Management, University of los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Jean Carlo RamírezSchool of Management, University of los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.
Luisa Fernanda MaldonadoSchool of Management, University of los Andes, Bogotá, Colombia.

Funding

Colombian Ministry of Science, Technology and Innovation 1204101577001
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCOVID-19 has presented challenges to healthcare systems and healthcare professionals internationally. After one year of the pandemic, the initial evidence on health system responses begins to consolidate, and there is a need to identify and synthesise experiences of responding to COVID-19 among healthcare professionals and other health system stakeholders. This systematic review of primary qualitative studies depicts the experiences and perceptions of organisations and actors at multiple levels of health systems internationally in responding to COVID-19.

methodsSix main databases of biomedical information, public health and health administration research were searched over the period October 1, 2019, to October 21, 2020. Information extracted from included studies was analysed thematically.

resultsThirty-four studies were eligible for data extraction. Nine of those studies, of lower methodological quality, were removed from the thematic analysis of study results. Considering the professional level experiences, predominant themes of the studies consisted of the new roles and responsibilities of healthcare workers, burnout and distress, recognition of ´unseen´ healthcare workers, and positive changes and emergent solutions amid the crisis. Organisational level findings of the studies included provision of psychological support, COVID-19 as "catalyst" for change, and exercise of more "open" leadership by managers and health authorities. Continuous training, regulation of working conditions, providing supportive resources, coordinating a diversity of actors, and reviewing and updating regulations were roles identified  at the local health system level.

conclusionsThe experiences of frontline healthcare workers have been the focus of attention of the majority of primary qualitative studies as of October 2020. However, organisational and wider system level studies indicate that some responses to COVID-19 have been characterised by increased emphasis on coordination activities by local health system actors, making service adaptations at pace, and reliance on expanded roles of front-line workers. The need for theory-informed qualitative studies was identified at the organisational level.

trial registrationCRD42020202875.

Indexed as

Communicable Disease ControlCOVID-19Health Knowledge, Attitudes, PracticeInternationalityAttitude of Health PersonnelHealth Facility AdministratorsHealth PersonnelHumansLeadershipSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Health administrationHealthcare workersQualitativeSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID33962635
PMCPMC8103061

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.