Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34300110›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2021

Perceived Access to Health Care Services and Relevance of Telemedicine during the COVID-19 Pandemic in Germany.

Lukas Reitzle, Christian Schmidt, Francesca Färber, Lena Huebl, Lothar Heinz Wieler, Thomas Ziese, Christin Heidemann

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
39citing papers in PubMed
5.3field-weighted citation impact, top 3% 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

39 citing papers in PubMed, 68 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  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
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 at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lukas ReitzleDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, 12101 Berlin, Germany.
Christian SchmidtDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, 12101 Berlin, Germany.
Francesca FärberDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, 12101 Berlin, Germany.
Lena HueblDepartment of Tropical Medicine, Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf, 20359 Hamburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-2822-7202
Lothar Heinz WielerRobert Koch Institute, 13353 Berlin, Germany.
Thomas ZieseDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, 12101 Berlin, Germany.
Christin HeidemannDepartment of Epidemiology and Health Monitoring, Robert Koch Institute, 12101 Berlin, Germany.
Robert Koch Institute · DEUniversität Hamburg · DE

Funding

Bundesministerium für Gesundheit GE20150323 and GE20190305
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

During the COVID-19 pandemic in Germany, non-pharmaceutical interventions were imposed to contain the spread of the virus. Based on cross-sectional waves in March, July and December 2020 of the COVID-19 Snapshot Monitoring (COSMO), the present study investigated the impact of the introduced measures on the perceived access to health care. Additionally, for the wave in December, treatment occasion as well as utilization and satisfaction regarding telemedicine were analysed. For 18-74-year-old participants requiring medical care, descriptive and logistic regression analyses were performed. During the less strict second lockdown in December, participants reported more frequently ensured access to health care (91.2%) compared to the first lockdown in March (86.8%), but less frequently compared to July (94.2%) during a period with only mild restrictions. In December, main treatment occasions of required medical appointments were check-up visits at the general practitioner (55.2%) and dentist (36.2%), followed by acute treatments at the general practitioner (25.6%) and dentist (19.0%), treatments at the physio-, ergo- or speech therapist (13.1%), psychotherapist (11.9%), and scheduled hospital admissions or surgeries (10.0%). Of the participants, 20.0% indicated utilization of telemedical (15.4% telephone, 7.6% video) consultations. Of them, 43.7% were satisfied with the service. In conclusion, for the majority of participants, access to medical care was ensured during the COVID-19 pandemic; however, access slightly decreased during phases of lockdown. Telemedicine complemented the access to medical appointments.

Indexed as

COVID-19TelemedicineAdolescentAdultAgedAmbulatory CareCommunicable Disease ControlCross-Sectional StudiesGermanyHealth Services AccessibilityHumansMiddle AgedPandemicsSARS-CoV-2Young Adultaccess to health careCOVID-19health care utilizationSARS-CoV-2telemedicine

Identifiers

PMID34300110
PMCPMC8303178
OpenAlexW3183703295

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.