Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34282695›Full record

ArticleThe European journal of general practice2021

COVID-19's impact on primary care and related mitigation strategies: A scoping review.

Jayleigh Lim, John Broughan, Des Crowley, Brendan O'Kelly, Ronan Fawsitt, Mary Carmel Burke, Geoff McCombe, John S Lambert, Walter Cullen

Abstract readScoping Review
In one paragraph

Article in The European journal of general practice, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 68 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
68citing 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

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

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Trial
  4. 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

8 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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

9 authors.

Jayleigh LimSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5778-6804
John BroughanSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5084-8507
Des CrowleySchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8491-9596
Brendan O'KellySchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9367-6576
Ronan FawsittSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.
Mary Carmel BurkeMater Misericordiae University Hospital, Dublin, Ireland.
Geoff McCombeSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4898-3459
John S LambertSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5404-2415
Walter CullenSchool of Medicine, University College Dublin, Dublin, Ireland.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1838-5052

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has had a substantial impact on primary care throughout Europe and globally.

objectivesThis review aims to ascertain how the pandemic has impacted primary care service provision/patients and to examine strategies to mitigate these impacts.

methodsThe scoping review framework comprised a six-stage process developed by Arksey and O'Malley. The search process was guided by the Joanna Briggs Institute three-step search strategy and involved searching the PubMed, Embase, Scopus, CINAHL Plus, and Cochrane Library databases. The review is reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews. A thematic analysis approach by Braun and Clarke was used to interpret the findings.

resultsThirty-two studies from 18 countries and six continents were included, 13 reported original research, three were reviews, and 16 were case reports reporting healthcare systems' experiences of dealing with the pandemic. Emerging themes concerned the COVID-19 pandemic's impact on primary care service provision and patients, the impact of the rapid transition to telemedicine due to COVID-19 on primary care, and strategies to mitigate the impact of COVID-19 on primary care (i.e. infection prevention and control measures, alternatives/modifications to traditional service delivery or workflow, government policy responses, and education).

conclusionThe COVID-19 pandemic has considerably impacted on primary care at both service and patient levels, and various strategies to mitigate these impacts have been described. Future research examining the pandemic's ongoing impacts on primary care, as well as strategies to mitigate these impacts, is a priority.

Indexed as

COVID-19PandemicsHealth Services AccessibilityHumansPatient ParticipationPrimary Health CareQuality of Health CareTelemedicinegeneralgeneral practice/family medicinehealth care organisation and managementInfectious diseasespublic health and community medicine

Identifiers

PMID34282695
PMCPMC8293960

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.