Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36253113›Full record

ArticleThe British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners2022

Contacts in general practice during the COVID-19 pandemic: a register-based study.

Linda Huibers, Bodil Hammer Bech, Ulrik Bak Kirk, Per Kallestrup, Claus Høstrup Vestergaard, Morten Bondo Christensen

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The British journal of general practice : the journal of the Royal College of General Practitioners, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed
8.8field-weighted citation impact, top 2% 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

23 citing papers in PubMed, 44 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Observational
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Observational
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Linda HuibersResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus.ORCID 0000-0002-5048-3026
Bodil Hammer BechDepartment of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus.ORCID 0000-0002-0287-3687
Ulrik Bak KirkResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus.ORCID 0000-0003-1683-2189
Per KallestrupResearch Unit for General Practice and Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus.ORCID 0000-0001-6041-4510
Claus Høstrup VestergaardResearch Unit for General Practice, Aarhus University, Aarhus.ORCID 0000-0003-2916-1548
Morten Bondo ChristensenResearch Unit for General Practice and Department of Public Health, Aarhus University, Aarhus.ORCID 0000-0002-8342-7418
Aarhus University · DK

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has altered the provision of health care and expanded telehealth consultations.

aimTo study the effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on contact patterns in general practice, and to identify patient groups at risk of losing care. DESIGN AND

settingRegister-based study of Danish general practice, including daytime and out-of-hours (OOH) services.

methodAll individuals residing in Denmark from 1 January 2017 to 31 October 2020 were included. The incidence rate for six contact types in general practice and adjusted incidence rate ratio were calculated by comparing the incidence rate in the pandemic period with the adjusted expected incidence rate based on the incidence rate in the pre-pandemic period.

resultsThe number of face-to-face in-clinic consultations declined during the lockdown in March 2020. A subsequent increase in the number of clinic consultations was observed, rising to a level above that of the pre-pandemic period; this increase resulted mainly from the introduction of telehealth consultations (that is, video and extended telephone). The number of daytime email consultations increased, whereas the number of daytime home visits decreased. Likewise, the number of OOH telephone consultations increased, whereas the number of OOH home visits and clinic consultations decreased. Consultation rates of patients who are vulnerable, that is, those with low education, old age, and comorbidity, were most adversely affected by the pandemic. The most adverse impact in OOH clinic consultations was seen for children aged 0-9 years.

conclusionNew methods are called for to ensure access to general practice for patients who are vulnerable during a pandemic. The potential of telehealth consultations should be further investigated.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PracticeTelemedicineChildCommunicable Disease ControlFamily PracticeHumansPandemicsCOVID-19general practicehealth equityprimary health caretelemedicine

Identifiers

PMID36253113
PMCPMC9591020
OpenAlexW4293579407

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.