ArticleBMC primary care2022
Health care professionals' perspectives on the utilisation of a remote surveillance and care tool for patients with COVID-19 in general practice: a qualitative study.
Article 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 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Health Care Providers' Perspectives on Early Warning Systems for Acute Respiratory Infections in Canada: Qualitative Study.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2026Article
- Patient Experience from a Pilot Study Implementing Software-Based Post-COVID Case Management in GP Practices-A Qualitative Process Evaluation.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Psychosocial working conditions and mental health among medical assistants in Germany: a scoping review.BMC public health · 2024Article
- Experiencing COVID-19, home isolation and primary health care: A mixed-methods study.Frontiers in public health · 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
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundMost COVID-19 patients with severe symptoms are treated in hospitals. General practices are responsible for assessing most ambulatory patients. However, they face several challenges managing COVID-19 patients, and those with non-COVID-19 conditions. In April of 2020, we designed a software tool for the structured surveillance of high-risk home-quarantined COVID-19 patients in general practice (CovidCare) including several telephone monitorings, in order to support general practices and early identification of severe courses. This study presents the qualitative results of a mixed-methods process evaluation study on CovidCare.
methodsIn a qualitative process evaluation study conducted between March and May 2021, we explored the perspectives of seven general practitioners (GPs) and twelve VERAHs (medical care assistants with special training) on CovidCare using semi-structured interviews based on the RE-AIM framework (reach, effectiveness, adoption, implementation, maintenance). We used deductive qualitative content analysis employing the RE-AIM framework to assess the utilisation and implementation of CovidCare.
resultsOverall, most health care professionals were satisfied with CovidCare. They highlighted 1) a good orientation for the management of COVID-19 patients, especially due to a high level of uncertainty at the beginning of the pandemic, 2) the possibility to gain new knowledge, and 3) the structured data collection as facilitators for the implementation of CovidCare. Moreover, CovidCare reduced the workload for GPs while some VERAHs perceived a higher workload as they were responsible for large parts of the CovidCare management. However, CovidCare positively affected the VERAHs' job satisfaction as most patients provided positive feedback and felt less anxious about coping with their disease. Previous experience with the software and an easy integration into daily practice were considered to be crucial utilisation drivers. Time and personnel resources were identified as major barriers. To further improve CovidCare, participants suggested a less comprehensive version of CovidCare, the expansion of inclusion criteria as well as an app for the patients' self-management.
conclusionThe COVID-19 surveillance and care tool for COVID-19 patients with increased risk was perceived as useful by GPs and VERAHs. Supportive remote health care tools such as CovidCare are a viable means to maintain comprehensive and continuous health care during a pandemic and may strengthen the primary care system.
trial registrationGerman Clinical Trials Register DRKS00022054 ; date of registration: 02/06/2020.
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.