Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36930662›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

"What else to say?"-Primary health care in times of COVID-19 from the perspective of German general practitioners: An exploratory analysis of the open text field in the PRICOV-19 study.

Stefanie Stark, Marie Kluge, Emmily Schaubroeck, Felix Werner, Esther van Poel, Sara Willems, Marco Roos, Thomas Kühlein, Larissa Burggraf

Full text read
In one paragraph

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 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. 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

9 authors.

Stefanie StarkInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-5349-7984
Marie KlugeInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Emmily SchaubroeckInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-7325-5501
Felix WernerInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Esther van PoelDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Sara WillemsDepartment of Public Health and Primary Care, Ghent University, Ghent, Belgium.
Marco RoosGeneral Practice, Faculty of Medicine, University of Augsburg, Augsburg, Germany.ORCID 0000-0003-1596-5908
Thomas KühleinInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.
Larissa BurggrafInstitute of General Practice, Friedrich-Alexander University Erlangen-Nürnberg (FAU), Erlangen, Germany.ORCID 0000-0002-6286-1813

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe international collaboration study PRICOV-19 -Primary Health Care in times of COVID-19 aims to assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the organisation of primary health care. The German part focuses on the subjective perceptions of general practitioners on primary health care and the impact of political measures during the second wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. Within this survey, the "open text field" of the questionnaire was utilised remarkably frequently and extensively by the respondents. It became clear that the content that was named needed to be analysed in an exploratory manner. Accordingly, this paper addresses the following question: What preoccupies general practitioners in Germany during COVID-19 that we have not yet asked them enough?

methodsThe data collection took place throughout Germany from 01.02.2021 to 28.02.2021with a quantitative online questionnaire consisting of 53 items arranged across six topics as well as an "open text field" for further comments. The questionnaire's open text field was analysed following the premises of the qualitative content analysis.

resultsThe topics discussed by the respondents were: insufficient support from health policies, not being prioritised and involved in the vaccination strategy, feeling insufficient prepared, that infrastructural changes and financial concerns threatened the practice, and perceiving the own role as important, as well as that health policies affected the wellbeing of the respondents. One of the main points was the way general practitioners were not sufficiently acknowledged for their contribution to ensuring high-quality care during the pandemic. DISCUSSION: German general practitioners perceived their work and role as highly relevant during the COVID-19 pandemic. In controversy with their perception, they described political conditions in which they were the ones who contributed significantly to the fight against the pandemic but were not given enough recognition.

Indexed as

COVID-19General PractitionersData CollectionHumansPandemicsPrimary Health Care

Identifiers

PMID36930662
PMCPMC10022805

What OpenQuestion holds

Textfull text, public
LicenceCC BY
measurements read3
identifiers read4
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.