Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34111120›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2021

COVI-Prim survey: Challenges for Austrian and German general practitioners during initial phase of COVID-19.

Andrea Siebenhofer, Sebastian Huter, Alexander Avian, Karola Mergenthal, Dagmar Schaffler-Schaden, Ulrike Spary-Kainz, Herbert Bachler, Maria Flamm

Open access · goldAbstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
20citing papers in PubMed
3.7field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
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

20 citing papers in PubMed, 40 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. [General Practitioners' Experiences with COVID-19: a Survey After the First Wave of the Pandemic in March/April 2020].Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)) · 2023
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  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

8 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.

Andrea SiebenhoferInstitute of General Practice and Evidence based Health Services Research, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Sebastian HuterInstitute for General Practice, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Alexander AvianInstitute for Medical Informatics, and Statistics and Documentation, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.ORCID 0000-0003-1084-5763
Karola MergenthalInstitute of General Practice, Johann Wolfgang Goethe University Frankfurt, Frankfurt, Germany.
Dagmar Schaffler-SchadenInstitute for General Practice, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Ulrike Spary-KainzInstitute of General Practice and Evidence based Health Services Research, Medical University Graz, Graz, Austria.
Herbert BachlerInstitute of General Practice, Medical University Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria.
Maria FlammInstitute for General Practice, Family Medicine and Preventive Medicine, Paracelsus Medical University Salzburg, Salzburg, Austria.
Paracelsus Medical University · ATGoethe University Frankfurt · DEMedical University of Graz · ATInnsbruck Medical University · AT

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundCoronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) represents a significant challenge to health care systems around the world. A well-functioning primary care system is crucial in epidemic situations as it plays an important role in the development of a system-wide response.

methods2,187 Austrian and German GPs answered an internet survey on preparedness, testing, staff protection, perception of risk, self-confidence, a decrease in the number of patient contacts, and efforts to control the spread of the virus in the practice during the early phase of the COVID-pandemic (3rd to 30th April).

resultsThe completion rate of the questionnaire was high (90.9%). GPs gave low ratings to their preparedness for a pandemic, testing of suspected cases and efforts to protect staff. The provision of information to GPs and the perception of risk were rated as moderate. On the other hand, the participants rated their self-confidence, a decrease in patient contacts and their efforts to control the spread of the disease highly.

conclusionPrimary care is an important resource for dealing with a pandemic like COVID-19. The workforce is confident and willing to take an active role, but needs to be provided with the appropriate surrounding conditions. This will require that certain conditions are met. REGISTRATION: Trial registration at the German Clinical Trials Register: DRKS00021231.

Indexed as

Physicians, Primary CarePrimary Health CareAdultAustriaCommunicable Disease ControlCOVID-19FemaleGermanyHumansMaleMiddle AgedSurveys and Questionnaires

Identifiers

PMID34111120
PMCPMC8191874
OpenAlexW3165978213

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.