Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35219328›Full record

ArticleBMC health services research2022

A mixed-method study on the provision of remote consultations for non-communicable disease patients during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia: lessons for the future.

Mirdza Kursīte, Inese Stars, Ieva Strēle, Inese Gobiņa, Anda Ķīvīte-Urtāne, Daiga Behmane, Alina Dūdele, Anita Villeruša

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC health services research, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.8field-weighted citation impact, top 7% 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

13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. COVID-19 Pandemic- Ethical Challenges for Healthcare Workers Practicing in Resource-Limited Settings.Nigerian medical journal : journal of the Nigeria Medical Association
    Review
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 1 institution in 1 country.

Mirdza KursīteInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia. mirdza.kursite@rsu.lv.
Inese StarsInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Ieva StrēleInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Inese GobiņaInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Anda Ķīvīte-UrtāneInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Daiga BehmaneInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Alina DūdeleInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Anita VillerušaInstitute of Public Health, Riga Stradiņš University, Riga, Latvia.
Riga Stradiņš University · LV

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has challenged the ability of healthcare systems to ensure the continuity of health services for patients with non-communicable diseases (NCDs). The issue of remote consultations has emerged. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, remote consultations were not routinely provided or covered by public health funding in Latvia. This study aimed to describe the dynamics of consultations and the volume of remote consultations provided for patients with particular NCD and explore clinicians' experiences of providing remote consultations during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia.

methodsA mixed-method study focusing on the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia in Spring 2020 was conducted. Quantitative data from the National Health Services were analysed to assess the dynamics of consultations for patients with selected NCDs. Qualitative data were collected through 34 semi-structured interviews with general practitioners (GPs) and specialists and were analysed using an inductive thematic analysis. Purposive maximum variation sampling was used for participant selection.

resultsDuring the period with the strongest restrictions of scheduled on-site consultations, a decrease in the total number of consultations was observed for a variety of NCDs. A significant proportion of consultations in this period were provided remotely. GPs provided approximately one-third of cancer-related consultations and almost half of consultations for the other selected conditions remotely. Among specialists, endocrinologists had the highest proportion of remote consultations (up to 72.0%), while urologists had the lowest (16.4%). Thematic analysis of the semi-structured interviews revealed five themes: 1) Adjusting in a time of confusion and fear, 2) Remote consultations: safety versus availability, 3) Sacrifice and loss of privacy, 4) Advantages and disadvantages of communication technologies, and 5) Different form of communication and a health literacy challenge.

conclusionsDuring the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Latvia, disruptions to health care services decreased the total number of consultations for patients with NCDs provided by both GPs and specialists. In this period, remote consultations proved to be an important instrument for ensuring the continuity of health care for patients with NCDs, and the necessity to develop a well-designed system for telemedicine in Latvia was highlighted.

Indexed as

COVID-19Noncommunicable DiseasesRemote ConsultationHealth ServicesHumansLatviaPandemicsSARS-CoV-2COVID-19Mixed-methodNon-communicable diseasesRemote consultations

Identifiers

PMID35219328
PMCPMC8881750
OpenAlexW4214607240

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.