ArticlePloS one2022
Experiences of COVID-19 infection in North Carolina: A qualitative analysis.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- A stepped wedge cluster randomized trial to evaluate the effectiveness of a multisite family caregiver skills training program.Health services research · 2024Trial
- Article
- Reaching "covidianidad": A qualitative study of the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the perceived mental health of health care workers in the Dominican Republic.PLOS global public health · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND
aimIt has been demonstrated that marginalized populations across the U.S. have suffered a disproportionate burden of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, illustrating the role that social determinants of health play in health outcomes. To better understand how these vulnerable and high-risk populations have experienced the pandemic, we conducted a qualitative study to better understand their experiences from diagnosis through recovery.
methodsWe conducted a qualitative study of patients in a North Carolina healthcare system's registry who tested positive for COVID-19 from March 2020 through February 2021, identified from population-dense outbreaks of COVID-19 (hotspots). We conducted semi-structured phone interviews in English or Spanish, based on patient preference, with trained bilingual study personnel. Each interview was evaluated using a combination of deductive and inductive content analysis to determine prevalent themes related to COVID-19 knowledge, diagnosis, disease experience, and long-term impacts.
findingsThe 10 patients interviewed from our COVID-19 hotspot clusters were of equal distribution by sex, predominantly Black (70%), aged 22-70 years (IQR 45-62 years), and more frequently publicly insured (50% Medicaid/Medicare, vs 30% uninsured, vs 20% private insurance). Major themes identified included prior knowledge of COVID-19 and patient perceptions of their personal risk, the testing process in numerous settings, the process of quarantining at home after a positive diagnosis, the experience of receiving medical care during their illness, and difficulties with long-term recovery. DISCUSSION: Our findings suggest areas for targeted interventions to reduce COVID-19 transmission in these high-risk communities, as well as improve the patient experience throughout the COVID-19 illness course.
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.