ArticleFamily practice2022
Primary care consultations for respiratory tract symptoms during the COVID-19 pandemic: a cohort study including 70,000 people in South West England.
Article in Family practice, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 6 citations in OpenAlex.
- Ten pressure points in primary care during COVID-19: findings from an international narrative review.BMC primary care · 2025Pooled it
- Observational
- Remote Consultations in England During COVID-19: Challenges in Data Quality, Linkage, and Research Validity.Online journal of public health informatics · 2025Article
- Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on electronic referrals to rapid access clinics for suspected breast, lung and prostate cancers in Ireland.European journal of public health · 2024Article
- Analysis of in-person general practice respiratory consultations: assessing translatability to telehealth.BJGP open · 2023Article
- The impact of COVID-19 on chronic disease management in primary care: lessons for Australia from the international experience.The Medical journal of Australia · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundPrimary care consultations for respiratory tract symptoms including identifying and managing COVID-19 during the pandemic have not been characterized.
methodsA retrospective cohort analysis using routinely collected records from 70,431 adults aged 18+ in South England within the Electronic Care and Health Information Analytics (CHIA) database. Total volume and type of consultations (face-to-face, home visits, telephone, email/video, or out of hours) for respiratory tract symptoms between 1 January and 31 July 2020 (during the first wave of the pandemic) were compared with the equivalent period in 2019 for the same cohort. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize consultations by sociodemographic and clinical characteristics, and by COVID-19 diagnosis and outcomes (death, hospitalization, and pneumonia).
resultsOverall consultations for respiratory tract symptoms increased by 229% during the pandemic compared with the preceding year. This included significant increases in telephone consultations by 250%, a 1,574% increase in video/email consultations, 105% increase in home visits, and 92% increase in face-to-face consultations. Nearly 60% of people who presented with respiratory symptoms were tested for COVID-19 and 16% confirmed or clinically suspected to have the virus. Those with complications including pneumonia, requiring hospitalization, and who died were more likely to be seen in-person.
conclusionDuring the pandemic, primary care substantially increased consultations for respiratory tract symptoms to identify and manage people with COVID-19. These findings should be balanced against national reports of reduced GP workload for non-COVID care.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.