Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35436865›Full record

Observational studyBMC primary care2022

The challenge for general practitioners to keep in touch with vulnerable patients during the COVID-19 lockdown: an observational study in France.

Tiphanie Bouchez, Sylvain Gautier, Julien Le Breton, Yann Bourgueil, Aline Ramond-Roquin

Open access · goldAbstract readObservational Study
In one paragraph

Observational study in BMC primary care, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
13citing papers in PubMed
2.0field-weighted citation impact, top 12% 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. French General Practitioners' Adaptations for Patients with Suspected COVID-19 in May 2020.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  12. Article
  13. 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

5 authors at 5 institutions in 2 countries.

Tiphanie BouchezUniversity Côte d'Azur, Department of Education and Research in General Practice, RETINES, HEALTHY, F-06107, Nice, France. Tiphanie.BOUCHEZ@univ-cotedazur.fr.
Sylvain GautierParis-Saclay University, University of Versailles Saint-Quentin, Inserm U1018, CESP, Primary Care and Prevention, Villejuif, France.
Julien Le BretonUniv Paris Est Creteil, INSERM, IMRB, CEpiA Team, F-94010, Créteil, France.
Yann BourgueilMission RESPIRE, EHESP-CNAMTS-IRDES - EA MOS 7348 EHESP, La Plaine Saint-Denis, France.
Aline Ramond-RoquinUniv Angers, Département de médecine générale, F-49000, Angers, France.
Conservatoire National des Arts et Métiers · FRInstitut de Recherche et de Documentation en Économie de la Santé · FRRéanimation et soins intensifs du patient en Insuffisance respiratoire aigüeRisques, Epidémiologie, Territoires, Informations, Education et SantéUniversité Paris-Est Créteil · FR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIn France, the first COVID-19-related lockdown (17th March to 10th May 2020) resulted in a major decrease in healthcare service utilization. This raised concerns about the continuity of care for vulnerable patients.

objectivesTo identify individual and organizational factors associated with the initiatives taken by French GPs to contact vulnerable patients during the lockdown.

methodsA national observational survey using an online questionnaire was conducted to document French GPs' adaptations to the COVID-19 situation, their individual and organizational characteristics, including practice type (individual, group, multidisciplinary) and size. Data were collected from 7th to 20th May 2020 using mailing lists of GPs from the study partners and GPs who participated in a previous survey. This paper analysed answers to the question exploring whether and how GPs took initiatives to contact vulnerable patients. Responses were categorized in: no initiative; selection of patients to contact with a criteria-based strategy; initiative of contact without criteria-based strategy. Multivariate multinomial logistic regression identified factors associated with each category. Key components of the reported initiatives were described by inductive analysis of verbatim material.

resultsAmong the 3012 participant GPs (~ 5.6% of French GPs), 1419 (47.1%) reported initiatives to contact some patients without criteria-based strategy, and 808 (26.8%) with a strategy using various clinical/psychological/social criteria. Women GPs more often declared initiatives of contacts with a criteria-based strategy (OR = 1.41, 95% CI [1.14-1.75]) as well as GPs with more than two patients who died due to COVID-19 in comparison with those having none (OR = 1.84, 95% CI [1.43-2.36]). Teaching GPs more often used criteria-based strategies than the other GPs (OR = 1.94, 95% CI [1.51-2.48]). Compared with those working in small monodisciplinary practice, GPs working alone were less likely to implement criteria-based initiatives of contacts (OR = 0.70, 95% CI [0.51-0.97]), while GPs working in multidisciplinary practice were more likely (OR = 1.94, 95% CI [1.26-2.98] in practices > 20 professionals).

conclusionFrench GPs took various initiatives to keep in touch with vulnerable patients, more frequently when working in group practices. These findings confirm the importance of primary care organization to ensure continuity of care for vulnerable people.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PractitionersCommunicable Disease ControlFemaleFranceHumansSurveys and QuestionnairesContinuity of careCOVID-19Family practiceMultidisciplinary carePopulation healthPrimary careVulnerability

Identifiers

PMID35436865
PMCPMC9014789
OpenAlexW4223952377

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.