ArticlePloS one2023
Making sense of and working with COVID-19 related guidelines and information in Danish general practice-A qualitative study.
Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Family Physicians as Street-Level Bureaucrats: An Interview-Based Study of Service Supply Challenges in Shanghai, China During Public Health Emergencies.Risk management and healthcare policy · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundAttempts to manage the COVID-19 pandemic have involved a massive flow of guidelines and information to health professionals on how to reorganize clinical work and handle patients with COVID-19. The aim of this paper is to investigate how Danish general practitioners (GPs) made sense of and worked with guidelines and associated information on COVID-19 in the first months of the pandemic.
methodsWe conducted qualitative interviews with 13 GPs in the beginning of the pandemic and again approximately three months later. Between the two interviews, they wrote daily notes for 20 days. Interviews were audio-recorded and transcribed, and the material was analyzed using thematic network analysis.
resultsThe interviewed GPs found the situation urgent and serious, and they spent a lot of time reading and working with COVID-19 related guidelines and associated information. Keeping up-to-date with and implementing guidelines was challenging due to the many sources of information and the constant guideline revisions. The GPs were able to assess patients' risk status but were challenged by the changing guidelines regarding this. The GPs found that deciding whether a COVID-19 patient needed to be admitted to hospital was relatively straightforward. An important final challenge was discrepancies between the government's public announcements regarding which patients could be tested for COVID-19, the guidelines provided to GPs, and the local testing capacities, which gave GPs extra work.
conclusionIn an urgent situation like the COVID-19 pandemic it is crucial to secure good communication between the government, health authorities, professional medical societies, and health professionals. Improved practices of collaboration between health authorities and professional societies could improve communication in future health crises and relieve GPs of some of the work involved in keeping up-to-date with information flows, constantly reviewing new guidelines, and dealing with communicative inconsistencies.
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.