Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36834369›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of environmental research and public health2023

Differences between Rural and Urban Practices in the Response to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Outcomes from the PRICOV-19 Study in 38 Countries.

Ferdinando Petrazzuoli, Claire Collins, Esther Van Poel, Athina Tatsioni, Sven Streit, Gazmend Bojaj, Radost Asenova, Kathryn Hoffmann, Jonila Gabrani, Zalika Klemenc-Ketis and 5 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of environmental research and public health, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

7 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. 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

15 authors.

Ferdinando PetrazzuoliDepartment of Clinical Sciences, Centre for Primary Health Care Research, Lund University, 21428 Malmö, Sweden.ORCID 0000-0003-1058-492X
Claire CollinsResearch Centre, Irish College of General Practitioners, D02 XR68 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0001-8967-5159
Esther Van PoelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-8470-9214
Athina TatsioniResearch Unit for General Medicine and Primary Health Care, Faculty of Medicine, School of Health Sciences, University of Ioannina, 45110 Ioannina, Greece.ORCID 0000-0001-7652-6592
Sven StreitInstitute of Primary Health Care (BIHAM), University of Bern, Mittelstrasse 43, 3012 Bern, Switzerland.ORCID 0000-0002-3813-4616
Gazmend BojajDepartment of Management of Health Services and Institution, Heimerer College, 1000 Pristina, Kosovo.ORCID 0000-0003-1379-3188
Radost AsenovaDepartment of Urology and General Practice, Faculty of Medicine, Medical University Plovdiv, 4003 Plovdiv, Bulgaria.ORCID 0000-0003-2158-5792
Kathryn HoffmannDepartment of Social- and Preventive Medicine, Medical University of Vienna, 1090 Vienna, Austria.
Jonila GabraniFaculty of Medicine, University of Basel, 4001 Basel, Switzerland.
Zalika Klemenc-KetisDepartment of Family Medicine, Medical Faculty, University of Maribor, Tabroska 8, 2000 Maribor, Slovenia.ORCID 0000-0002-0270-1754
Andrée RochfortResearch Centre, Irish College of General Practitioners, D02 XR68 Dublin, Ireland.ORCID 0000-0003-3904-031X
Limor AdlerDepartment of Family Medicine, Sackler Faculty of Medicine, Tel Aviv University, Tel Aviv 6195001, Israel.
Adam WindakDepartment of Family Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-061 Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9844-8935
Katarzyna NesslerDepartment of Family Medicine, Jagiellonian University Medical College, 31-061 Krakow, Poland.ORCID 0000-0001-9869-7923
Sara WillemsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, 9000 Ghent, Belgium.ORCID 0000-0002-6349-7785

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

This paper explores the differences between rural and urban practices in the response to the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing aspects such as management of patient flow, infection prevention and control, information processing, communication and collaboration. Using a cross-sectional design, data were collected through the online PRICOV-19 questionnaire sent to general practices in 38 countries. Rural practices in our sample were smaller than urban-based practices. They reported an above-average number of old and multimorbid patients and a below-average number of patients with a migrant background or financial problems. Rural practices were less likely to provide leaflets and information, but were more likely to have ceased using the waiting room or to have made structural changes to their waiting room and to have changed their prescribing practices in terms of patients attending the practices. They were less likely to perform video consultations or use electronic prescription methods. Our findings show the existence of certain issues that could impact patient safety in rural areas more than in urban areas due to the underlying differences in population profile and supports. These could be used to plan the organization of care for similar future pandemic situations.

Indexed as

COVID-19Cross-Sectional StudiesHumansPandemicsRural PopulationSurveys and QuestionnairesCOVID-19general practiceinternational comparisonPRICOV-19primary health carequality of careruralurban

Identifiers

PMID36834369
PMCPMC9958860

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.